Did the Supreme Court change the decision about Trumps immunity

1. What the Supreme Court actually decided

The Court’s July 1, 2024 opinion vacated and remanded lower‑court rulings and held that a former president is entitled to absolute immunity for actions “within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts; unofficial or private acts receive no immunity ^[1]. The majority’s framework requires lower courts to separate allegedly criminal conduct into official acts (potentially insulated) and unofficial acts (not insulated) and to reassess indictments and evidence accordingly ^{[5] [1]}.

2. Immediate effects on Trump’s cases

Courts and prosecutors have responded by re‑examining indictments and evidence to determine what counts as an “official” act under the ruling. Prosecutors were directed to consider whether allegations tied to commandeering the Department of Justice should be dropped; the ruling required trimming some charges or evidence and remanding factual questions back to lower courts ^{[6] [1]}. The decision altered litigation strategy more than instantly vacating convictions across the board ^[7].

3. How litigants are using the ruling now

Trump’s legal team has pressed the immunity decision as a basis to overturn or remove state convictions and reopen federal review; for example, appeals and motions have argued that state‑court evidence (like testimony from former aides) was tainted because it concerned official acts and thus should have been excluded ^{[8] [3]}. Federal appellate panels have ordered renewed review in New York removal litigation to assess whether the immunity ruling affects the hush‑money conviction ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Mixed reactions in legal commentary and advocacy groups

Civil liberties and legal watchdog groups say the ruling gives presidents sweeping protections that could shield serious wrongdoing when framed as “official,” and warn it undermines accountability ^{[2] [6]}. Other commentators — including some conservative outlets and writers — criticize the decision as inconsistent with constitutional text or poorly reasoned but acknowledge it now governs lower‑court processes ^{[9] [5]}. These competing framings shape how judges and litigants interpret the decision on remand ^{[5] [2]}.

5. What courts have done since: remands, reviews, appeals

Lower courts have not uniformly applied one remedy. Some judges have kept convictions intact pending narrow review; others have reopened review or ordered district judges to reassess whether evidence implicated protected official acts, as the 2nd Circuit did when it sent the hush‑money removal question back for further consideration ^{[4] [3]}. The Supreme Court’s ruling thus produces continued litigation rather than a single, neat outcome ^{[1] [4]}.

6. Where this leaves the public question — “Did the Court change its mind?”

Available sources show the Supreme Court issued a decisive change in law in mid‑2024, not a later reversal of that decision. Reporting documents a single transformative ruling that has been litigated and applied across cases since — litigants are asking lower courts to apply that ruling to past convictions and pending prosecutions ^{[1] [3]}. There is no source here showing the Supreme Court later reversed its own immunity decision; instead, downstream courts and commentators are disputing its scope and consequences ^{[10] [4]}.

7. Key uncertainties and what to watch next

The ruling left many factual and doctrinal line‑drawing tasks to lower courts ^[1]. Watch for more appellate rulings on whether particular evidence or actions qualify as “official,” further efforts to remove state prosecutions to federal court, and any future Supreme Court grants of review that might refine or narrow the immunity framework ^{[3] [4]}. Sources do not mention a subsequent Supreme Court reversal of the immunity holding (not found in current reporting).

Limitations: This summary relies on the provided reporting and legal summaries; it does not incorporate reporting or decisions beyond those sources and therefore frames what courts and commentators have explicitly said in those pieces ^{[1] [3] [2]}.