What precedent exists for holding former presidents criminally or civilly accountable for constitutional breaches?

1. The settled civil-law baseline: Nixon v. Fitzgerald and absolute immunity for official acts

The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald held that a President has absolute immunity from civil damages for official actions taken while in office, establishing a durable precedent that protects former presidents from personal liability in civil suits for conduct within the scope of official duties ^[1].

2. Criminal accountability before the recent Supreme Court decision: skeptical courts and the Vance line

Prior to the Court’s 2024 ruling, federal courts had repeatedly refused to bless a categorical bar on criminal prosecution of presidents, with the D.C. Circuit and others rejecting arguments that a president is immune from indictment for allegedly criminal official acts and finding that investigation and prosecution are not foreclosed by constitutional structure alone ^{[2] [3]}.

3. The normative and historical counterpoint: founding-era theory and modern scholarship

Scholars and historical sources argue the Framers envisioned presidential accountability and that the Constitution contains no explicit grant of sweeping immunity; historians and commentators have long emphasized that the presidency was not intended to be kinglike and that “[i]n America the law is king,” a line of argument advanced by the Brennan Center and other analysts ^{[6] [3]}.

4. The Supreme Court’s recent shift: Trump v. United States and new limits on criminal liability

In a consequential turn, the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States held that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within the “exclusive sphere” of constitutional authority while in office, and it recognized extensive protections for certain official communications—an outcome advocates say grants broad cover for official acts and critics say places presidents above the law ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Institutional law and policy tools outside criminal trials: impeachment, civil suits, and Section Three

Even as courts wrestle with criminal immunity, the Constitution and statutes provide other accountability mechanisms—impeachment and Senate judgment, civil enforcement where immunity does not apply, and provisions like Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment that can bar officeholding after insurrection—which advocates and watchdogs point to as alternative remedies when criminal pathways are constrained ^{[4] [7] [8]}.

6. Competing agendas and the contested record: advocacy, doctrine, and the political stakes

Civil-rights groups and watchdogs frame recent Court rulings as dangerous expansions of presidential power designed to insulate misconduct, while defenders of broad immunity invoke separation-of-powers concerns and anti-chilling rationales; those competing narratives reflect explicit advocacy agendas and different readings of sparse constitutional text and historical practice ^{[5] [8] [9]}.

7. Bottom line: precedent is mixed, recently tilted, and incomplete

The doctrinal map is mixed: Nixon v. Fitzgerald firmly protects official acts from civil damages ^[1], lower courts historically resisted criminal immunity claims ^{[2] [3]}, but the Supreme Court’s recent ruling imposes a new, significant immunity for some official acts by former presidents that narrows criminal exposure and leaves accountability contingent on doctrinal definitions of “official” conduct and alternative political-constitutional remedies ^{[4] [5]}; available sources do not exhaust all hypotheticals or future litigation paths, and further litigation and legislation remain possible ^{[9] [7]}.