What crimes or actions did the ruling say a president can be prosecuted for after leaving office?
Executive summary
The law is unsettled but recent high‑profile rulings and authoritative memos show a clear divide: presidents generally gain no blanket, permanent immunity for unofficial acts and can be prosecuted after leaving office for many actions, but the Supreme Court and some courts have carved out immunity for a subset of "official" acts — even potentially absolute protection for "core" presidential powers [1] [2]. Legal practice and Department of Justice guidance also reflect the view that prosecution while in office is constrained, and that accountability often shifts to criminal courts only after a president departs the White House [3] [4].
1. What the highest courts recently said: a three‑tier immunity framework
Congressional and court analyses summarize a recent Supreme Court decision that establishes a three‑tier approach: absolute immunity for acts tied to “core” or exclusive presidential powers; presumptive immunity for other “official” acts; and no immunity for “unofficial” acts — meaning many personal‑capacity crimes are prosecutable after a president leaves office [1]. Civil‑liberties groups and commentators reacted by noting the decision grants substantial protection for official conduct, including some conduct related to the Justice Department, while leaving open many questions about how to apply those lines in practice [2].
2. What counts as prosecutable after departure: unofficial acts and many pre/post‑office acts
Every cited analyst and institutional source agrees that a former president may be prosecuted for acts that are unmistakably private or unofficial — and for acts that occurred after leaving office — because constitutional immunity tied to performing presidential duties ends with tenure, at least in many respects [5] [4]. The Department of Justice’s historical practice and Office of Legal Counsel memoranda likewise treat presidential immunity as temporary: criminal process is generally deferred while in office but not permanently barred once the president is out of office [3] [4].
3. The open question: which “official” acts remain shielded?
Courts and legal scholars disagree about where to draw the line between protected “official” conduct and criminality that courts may review. The Supreme Court said some official acts are absolutely immune and other official acts receive presumptive immunity, but it left unresolved the precise definitions and standards for applying those categories — creating room for conflicting lower‑court rulings and appeals [1] [2]. That legal uncertainty means prosecutors, judges and appeals courts will continue to litigate specific cases to clarify when post‑office prosecution is permitted.
4. Practical consequences: prosecution deferred versus foreclosed
Longstanding DOJ policy and OLC reasoning have operated on the premise that criminal prosecution of a sitting president would unduly interfere with constitutional functions, so prosecutions are typically deferred while a president serves [3] [4]. But that policy does not equal a permanent bar; multiple legal authorities emphasize that immunity “ends” with office and that former presidents can be subject to indictment or trial for many acts once they are private citizens [4] [5].
5. Competing viewpoints and political context
Advocates for robust post‑office accountability argue former presidents must be treated “like everyone else,” citing courts that have affirmed that view and historical practices [6]. Civil‑liberties advocates warn the Supreme Court’s grant of substantial immunity for official acts risks placing presidents above the law and undermining accountability [2]. Executive‑branch materials and some conservative jurists counter that strong immunity protects essential constitutional functions and prevents disruptive prosecutions while in office [3] [1]. These competing agendas — accountability versus functional protection of the presidency — shape both litigation strategies and public debate.
6. What this means for specific prosecutions and the near future
Available sources show that specific charges will turn on whether alleged conduct is characterized as core presidential action, other official action, or unofficial personal conduct — and that classification will be litigated vigorously [1] [2]. Courts of appeals and trial courts will be key battlegrounds because the Supreme Court’s framework left many factual and legal lines undefined [1]. Prosecutors and defense teams will use those ambiguities to argue for dismissal or trial-readiness, respectively [6].
Limitations: available sources do not catalog every crime a president could face after leaving office; instead they describe legal frameworks, DOJ practice and recent judicial holdings that determine which actions are likely prosecutable [3] [1].