What legal arguments have Trump’s lawyers made about presidential immunity in criminal matters, and how have courts responded?

1. The core of Trump’s immunity argument: official acts, outer perimeter, and impeachment exclusivity

Counsel for Trump framed the defense as structural: the President must be able to act without fear of criminal prosecution for functions tied to his office, so any conduct within the “outer perimeter” of official responsibility should be immune and some core constitutional powers should receive absolute protection; his team also argued that impeachment is the Constitution’s exclusive political check for presidential misconduct, not criminal prosecution ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

2. How counsel pushed the boundaries — hypotheticals and absolute claims

In oral argument and lower-court filings Trump’s lawyers pressed maximalist hypotheticals—at one point suggesting immunity might cover even the most extreme uses of force—language that alarmed some judges and commentators and became emblematic of the breadth of the claim (the controversial “kill political rivals” exchange with John Sauer is recorded in court reporting) ^{[3] [5]}.

3. District and appeals courts initially resisted the sweep of the claim

District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump’s motion to dismiss on immunity grounds, holding that the presidency does not confer a lifelong criminal "get‑out‑of‑jail‑free" pass and that ordinary criminal process could proceed to evaluate facts and law; the D.C. Circuit likewise rejected a blanket immunity and described the defendant as a citizen for purposes of criminal prosecution while reserving narrower legal questions for appellate review ^{[3] [2] [6]}.

4. The Supreme Court’s response: a mixed ruling that reshaped but did not grant absolute immunity across the board

In Trump v. United States the Supreme Court issued a split decision holding that a former President enjoys absolute immunity for “core” constitutional powers and at least a presumptive immunity for other official acts within the “outer perimeter,” while remanding to lower courts to determine which specific charged actions qualify as official and which are purely personal—effectively adopting a three‑tiered framework rather than affirming the broadest of Trump’s claims ^{[1] [7] [8]}.

5. Dissents, advocacy reactions, and doctrinal alarms

Three liberal justices—Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson—dissented forcefully, warning the majority’s framework places the President above the criminal law and “reshapes the institution of the presidency,” a concern echoed by constitutional advocacy groups and commentators who called the ruling dangerous and likely to impede accountability ^{[9] [10] [11]}.

6. Practical consequences and the pathway back to lower courts

Practically, the Supreme Court’s decision did not end criminal proceedings; it sent the case back for trial courts to apply the majority’s test to specific acts (for example, whether attempts to pressure the vice president were “official”), while leaving open how immunity applies to non‑core acts and to state cases—thus converting a once-blanket immunity pitch into a fact‑specific inquiry that will spawn more litigation over where the official/personal line falls ^{[6] [12] [8]}.

7. Scholarly critiques and institutional implications

Academic and policy analysis warns that the decision’s broad language risks extending protections in ways the majority did not expressly endorse, raising questions about lower‑level official liability, internal executive branch guardrails, and the political remedies Congress may still employ; the Harvard Law Review and other commentators stress that the ruling creates open doctrinal edges that courts and scholars will dispute for years ^{[13] [11]}.