What did the Supreme Court specifically rule about presidential immunity for former President Trump?

1. What the Court actually held: absolute, presumptive and none

The majority framed immunity as three-tiered: absolute immunity for acts within the “core” of presidential constitutional duties, presumptive immunity for other acts within the “outer perimeter” of official responsibility that can be rebutted only under a demanding test, and no immunity for plainly unofficial, private conduct. The Court’s opinion says the nature of presidential power “entitles a former President to absolute immunity” for core official acts and creates a presumption for other official acts ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Immediate legal consequences the Court required

The ruling instructed prosecutors to drop or narrow allegations tied to Trump’s purported direction of the Department of Justice — conduct the Court treated as within the scope of official acts — and made it harder for prosecutors to use evidence of official acts even when trying to prove criminal conduct tied to private behavior ^{[2] [4] [3]}.

3. How the decision changes prosecutorial burdens

By establishing “presumptive” immunity for many official acts, the Court placed a high bar on prosecutors: they must rebut the presumption by showing that applying criminal law would not intrude on executive functions — an “onerous” test flagged by legal analysts and advocacy groups as likely to bog down cases in litigation and delay trials ^{[3] [2]}.

4. Dissenting view and public criticism

Three justices dissented. Outside the Court, civil liberties groups, legal scholars and commentators criticized the ruling as creating near‑monarchical protection that shields presidential misuse of executive power. The ACLU said the decision effectively prevents prosecution for using DOJ officials for private ends and called the standard vague and unworkable ^[2]. The Brennan Center warned the ruling invites presidents to use federal levers to commit crimes and directed prosecutors to drop key allegations ^[3].

5. Supportive reasoning and the majority’s rationale

The majority grounded immunity in separation‑of‑powers concerns and the need for a president to act “fearlessly and impartially” without the chilling effect of later criminal exposure. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion emphasized that some immunity is a “functionally mandated incident” of the presidency to prevent undue intrusion on executive duties ^{[5] [1]}.

6. Practical effects on pending cases and appeals

Courts and prosecutors promptly had to reassess pending charges. Judges in unrelated state and federal matters have reopened or revisited proceedings to determine what portions of indictments and evidence remain viable following the immunity ruling; the decision has already been cited in efforts to move or revisit criminal cases and convictions ^{[4] [6]}. The ruling particularly dimmed the likelihood of a pre‑election federal trial in the Washington case by narrowing what prosecutors may pursue ^[7].

7. What the decision does not say (and limitations of reporting)

Available sources repeatedly note the Court limited immunity to “official” acts and left open whether specific alleged acts qualify as official or unofficial — that threshold must be decided on the facts of each case, and lower courts will litigate that question ^{[1] [5]}. Sources do not provide a comprehensive list of which particular historical or hypothetical actions definitively fall into each immunity category; such determinations remain case‑specific and fact driven (not found in current reporting).

8. Broader political and institutional stakes

Observers across the political spectrum warn the ruling reshapes the balance between criminal accountability and executive autonomy. Critics argue it removes a crucial check on presidential misconduct; supporters argue it protects the presidency from disruptive criminalization. The split in opinion — both on the Court and in public commentary — signals long, consequential litigation over where the line between official and private presidential conduct will be drawn ^{[2] [3] [8]}.

Limitations: this summary relies solely on the provided reporting and the Court’s opinion excerpts; further factual nuance about subsequent lower‑court rulings and case‑specific applications will emerge from ongoing litigation ^{[1] [4]}.