On January 23, did the Supreme court reject Court Ruling of trumps final immunity claims in 3 criminal cases

1. The precedent the Supreme Court actually set in 2024

In Trump v. United States the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 opinion finding former presidents have substantial protection from criminal prosecution for “official acts,” including absolute immunity for some core presidential functions and presumptive immunity for other official actions, a decision that narrowed the federal obstruction and related allegations and sent aspects of the indictments back to trial courts to sort out what remained prosecutable ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. What the lower courts had done before the high court intervened

Before the Supreme Court’s intervention, a federal district judge in Washington rejected Trump’s expansive immunity claims and the D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed that rejection, holding the former president “enjoyed no immunity from criminal liability” under the charges as presented, which prompted the special counsel to seek expedited Supreme Court review and the court to stay the D.C. Circuit’s mandate while it considered the constitutional question ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

3. Why some outlets say the ruling “helps” Trump and others call it dangerous

Advocacy and legal groups sharply disagree about the effect: defenders of accountability argued the Court’s remand and limits still leave meaningful avenues for prosecution and stressed that the Court did not grant blanket immunity for all conduct ^[3], while civil liberties and democracy advocates warned that the ruling creates a daunting presumption of immunity for much official conduct and directed prosecutors to drop or rethink allegations tied to use of the Justice Department, framing the decision as substantially complicating enforcement against a president ^{[7] [8] [2]}.

4. What the sources do — and do not — show about January 23 specifically

None of the provided materials documents a Supreme Court action on January 23 that “rejected” a lower-court ruling about Trump’s immunity claims in three criminal cases; the primary Supreme Court opinion in the record is dated July 1, 2024 and related coverage centers on that ruling and its aftermath rather than a January 23 decision ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Reporting snippets from January 2026 in the supplied set concern other topics (tariffs, immigration policy) and do not substantiate a January 23 Supreme Court reversal of lower-court denials across three separate cases ^{[9] [10]}.

5. How to reconcile the timeline and remaining ambiguities

The arc in these sources is clear: district and appellate courts initially rejected Trump’s immunity claims, the special counsel sought Supreme Court intervention, and the Court’s July 2024 decision substantially altered the immunity landscape by recognizing broad protections for official acts and sending matters back to lower courts to implement that framework ^{[4] [1] [5] [6] [3]}. What is not available in the provided reporting is any Supreme Court action on January 23 that independently overruled or “rejected” lower-court rulings across three criminal prosecutions — the materials neither confirm nor describe such an event, so that specific assertion cannot be substantiated from these sources ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Bottom line for readers trying to follow the legal status

Based on the documents and reportage supplied, the authoritative Supreme Court ruling affecting presidential immunity is the July 1, 2024 Trump v. United States opinion that carved out broad immunities for official acts and required lower courts to apply that framework to pending indictments ^{[1] [2] [3]}; there is no corroborated Supreme Court order dated January 23 in the provided sources that rejected lower-court denials of Trump’s immunity claims in three criminal cases, and thus that specific claim remains unsupported by the material at hand ^{[1] [2]}.