How could Supreme Court limits on presidential immunity affect criminal prosecutions of former presidents?

1. What the Court actually said — a two‑tier immunity framework

The majority framed immunity as absolute for a narrow set of “core constitutional” powers and presumptive for other official acts, while declaring there is no immunity for purely unofficial conduct; lower courts must categorize disputed acts and apply the presumption, with prosecutors bearing a heavy burden to show no intrusion on executive authority ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. Immediate practical consequence: complicated prosecutions and new gatekeeping

The decision sends cases back to trial courts to parse whether specific conduct was “official,” substantially raising the procedural stakes and giving judges a new, potentially dispositive threshold inquiry before a criminal trial on the merits proceeds ^{[5] [6]}.

3. The prosecutorial hurdle — “no dangers of intrusion” as a high bar

Once an act is deemed within the outer perimeter of official duties, the government faces a presumption of immunity that it can only rebut by proving that applying the criminal law would present no danger of intruding on executive functions — a standard observers warn will be difficult to meet in practice ^{[5] [2]}.

4. Critics: a roadmap to impunity for official‑looking misconduct

Legal scholars and advocacy groups say the ruling creates broad protection that could “invite future presidents to use the levers of the federal government to commit crimes,” and that the Court sidelined the Founders’ expectation that presidents could be held criminally accountable ^{[7] [4]}.

5. Supporters: guarding the presidency from politicized prosecutions

Supporters, including the Court’s majority, argue immunity for official acts preserves presidential independence and prevents routine post‑term criminalization of policy disputes — a guardrail against prosecution chilling necessary executive decision‑making ^{[1] [6]}.

6. Where the decision leaves evidentiary tactics and remedies

Even when conduct is ruled “official,” the opinion and commentators indicate immunity could still shape what evidence is admissible and how prosecutions are structured; lower courts will develop doctrines about what proof satisfies or fails the “no‑intrusion” test ^{[5] [8]}.

7. Institutional fallout: Congress, impeachment, and potential reforms

Observers urge Congress could respond by clarifying statutes or pursuing constitutional amendments to reverse or narrow the ruling; legislative fixes and impeachment remain the political remedies highlighted in contemporary commentary ^{[3] [9]}.

8. Long‑term uncertainty — a doctrine still being written by lower courts

Scholars warn the opinion’s limits are under‑specified and that its full implications “may not be apparent for years,” with lower courts and future litigants defining the boundary between official and unofficial acts and the practical meaning of the presumption ^{[3] [10]}.

9. Hidden stakes: who benefits and who decides?

The ruling shifts power from prosecutors to judges to classify conduct and evaluate constitutional intrusion, a shift that critics say can entrench incumbency advantages and political outcomes unless checked by Congress or future courts ^{[3] [11]}.

10. Bottom line for prosecutions of former presidents

Prosecutors can still pursue charges for unofficial conduct and for official acts if they can meet the Court’s demanding “no‑intrusion” standard, but the ruling creates significant procedural and substantive obstacles that will make many post‑term criminal cases harder to bring and win without new statutory or constitutional responses ^{[1] [5]}.