What legal immunities did Donald Trump have while president and how do they apply after leaving office?

1. What the Supreme Court actually held: a three-tiered framework

In Trump v. United States the Court articulated a three-part structure: absolute immunity for actions tied to “core” or exclusive presidential powers, presumptive immunity for other “official acts” that can be rebutted by prosecutors, and no immunity for private or unofficial conduct; the opinion sent cases back to lower courts to apply these categories to the facts ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Absolute immunity: narrow but consequential

The Court said presidents have absolute immunity for certain core constitutional functions—illustrated in the opinion by shielding discussions with Justice Department officials—meaning prosecutors cannot criminally prosecute a former president for such acts, a ruling that eliminated at least some charges from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment as initially presented ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Presumptive immunity: a heavy burden on prosecutors

For other alleged “official” acts, the Court created a presumption of immunity that prosecutors must overcome at trial or pretrial by demonstrating that applying criminal law would not interfere with presidential functions; that presumption has required judges to analyze whether actions like pressuring the vice president or using agency resources were “official” and thus presumptively protected ^{[1] [3]}.

4. No immunity for unofficial acts, but the line is litigated

The Court preserved criminal accountability for plainly private conduct, but lower courts and prosecutors now litigate where the line between official and unofficial acts lies. Lower courts initially rejected blanket immunity claims, and the remands mean contentious factual assessment about whether particular communications or conduct were part of presidential duties ^{[6] [7]}.

5. Immediate effects on Trump’s cases: delay, dismissal, remands and appeals

The ruling delayed trials and caused prosecutors to revise charges and evidence strategies: some allegations tied to DOJ communications were removed from federal election-interference charges, the case was remanded to District Judge Tanya Chutkan for focused review, and special counsel filings and dismissals followed in light of the immunity analysis ^{[3] [5]}. The opinion has also spawned renewed appeals and motions in state cases—courts have been asked to reconsider admissibility of “official-acts” evidence in New York and other venues ^{[4] [8]}.

6. How immunity applies after leaving office: presumptive protection, not blanket shelter

After a president leaves office, the Supreme Court’s framework gives substantial protection for official acts: some actions are absolutely protected, most official conduct is presumptively protected (subject to rebuttal by prosecutors), and only unofficial, private wrongdoing remains plainly prosecutable. But the Court left the crucial fact questions to lower courts, so immunity after office turns on judicial fact-finding about whether a specific act was part of the presidency ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Diverging reactions and competing perspectives

Advocates for accountability, including civil-rights groups and legal scholars, warn the ruling “practically invites” misuse of federal power and undermines democratic constraints, arguing the majority created sweeping protections that may let official misconduct go unpunished ^{[9] [10]}. Other commentators and some conservative legal voices hailed the decision as necessary to prevent criminalization of core presidential judgments and to protect the presidency from paralyzing litigation ^{[11] [12]}.

8. Practical consequences and open questions courts must answer

The decision shifts the battlefield to lower courts: judges must parse whether acts were official, whether immunity can be rebutted, and how much official-acts evidence prosecutors may use even in cases framed as private wrongdoing. That will shape whether convictions survive appeals and whether some prosecutions remain viable—courts have already vacated or remanded rulings and sentencing in related matters pending immunity-based review ^{[4] [5]}.

9. What reporting does not resolve yet

Available sources do not mention a single, definitive list of actions that always are “official” versus “unofficial,” because the Supreme Court deliberately left those fact-intensive lines to lower courts; thus exact boundaries remain unsettled and will emerge incrementally through litigation ^{[1] [2]}.

10. Bottom line for readers

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides substantial post‑office protections for presidential conduct but is not an absolute shield for everything a president did; the outcome now depends on lower-court fact-finding about what counts as an official act and whether prosecutors can rebut presumptive immunity—making continued litigation and appeals the decisive arena ^{[1] [3] [4]}.