Fact check: Can a former US president be granted immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, yes, a former US president can be granted immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office, but this immunity is not absolute and comes with important limitations.

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States (July 1, 2024) that former presidents have absolute immunity for certain core official acts and at least presumptive immunity for other official actions ^[1]. Specifically, the Court determined that Trump is absolutely immune for some core actions, including attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct election results ^[1].

However, this immunity does not extend to unofficial acts ^[1]. The Court rejected President Trump's claim to absolute immunity for all acts unless convicted after an impeachment trial ^[2], meaning the immunity is more limited than what Trump originally sought.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context that emerged from the analyses:

• Constitutional opposition: The ACLU argued that the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent support the principle that nobody is above the law, even the president ^{[3] [2]}, directly contradicting the Court's decision.
• Expert warnings about democratic implications: Berkeley experts stated that the Supreme Court's ruling could allow presidents to commit crimes under the guise of official business, posing a direct threat to democracy and the rule of law ^[4].
• Precedent concerns: Experts argue that the Supreme Court's decision sets a dangerous precedent by giving presidents legal cover to break the law when using their formal powers ^[2].
• Accountability undermining: The decision undermines the ability to hold elected officials accountable ^[2] and left many questions open about when and for what conduct presidents will be immune from criminal prosecutions ^[2].

Who benefits from each viewpoint:

• Legal establishment and conservative justices benefit from the immunity ruling as it strengthens executive power
• Civil liberties organizations like the ACLU and constitutional scholars benefit from opposing this ruling as it maintains their role as democracy watchdogs
• Future presidents of any party benefit from expanded immunity protections
• Legal accountability advocates benefit from maintaining that no one is above the law

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is relatively neutral and factual, asking about legal possibilities rather than making claims. However, it could be misleading in its simplicity because:

• It doesn't distinguish between official and unofficial acts, which is the crucial legal distinction the Supreme Court established ^[1]
• It doesn't acknowledge that this represents a recent and controversial change in legal precedent that sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents ^[2]
• The framing as a simple yes/no question obscures the complex constitutional debate about whether this immunity threatens the rule of law ^[4] and places presidents above the law ^[3]

The question would be more complete if it acknowledged that while immunity can be granted, this represents a significant departure from the constitutional principle that nobody is above the law ^[2].