Which justices sided with the majority and dissent in the 7-2 immunity decision and why?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The reporting and opinions show this was not a 7–2 decision but a sharply divided 6–3 Supreme Court ruling that recognized substantial presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for some official acts; Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion joined by six conservative justices, while three liberal justices dissented forcefully (the court’s numerical split is consistently reported as 6–3) [1] [2] [3]. The majority created a three-tier framework—absolute immunity for “core” presidential powers, a presumption of immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts—while the dissent warned the majority had effectively carved out a “law‑free zone” around the presidency [4] [3] [5].
1. Who voted with the majority (and on what basic legal ground)
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, forming a six‑justice conservative majority that held former presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions that fall within their constitutional “core” powers and that there is at least a presumption of immunity for other official acts; that framework was grounded in concerns about preserving executive energy and avoiding distraction of the Presidency by criminal process [1] [4] [2].
2. Who dissented and their central objections
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan dissented, with Sotomayor as the most prominent dissenter accusing the majority of creating a “law‑free zone” and warning the opinion reshapes the Presidency by insulating official conduct from criminal accountability; Jackson joined that counterargument and emphasized the practical risks of diminished deterrence and accountability [3] [5] [6].
3. Why the majority sided as it did — the reasoning Roberts articulated
Roberts framed the ruling as an original‑function and institutional‑prudence decision: presidents must be able to act fearlessly and decisively without the pall of prosecution, so the Constitution protects the President from criminal liability for acts that touch the “core” of his exclusive constitutional powers and entitles him to at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, leaving factual and case‑specific application to lower courts and placing the burden on the government to rebut the presumption [4] [1].
4. Why the dissenters rejected that approach — constitutional and pragmatic alarms
Sotomayor and her colleagues argued that the majority’s text and precedent do not support the sweeping immunity the Court announced and warned that the new test will permit serious official wrongdoing to escape criminal sanction, undermining accountability and the rule of law; Sotomayor framed the decision as effectively exempting dangerous official acts from criminal review and said the Court invented immunity “through brute force,” a position echoed in critical legal commentary [5] [3] [2].
5. Notable concurrences and procedural knots left unresolved
Justices in the majority wrote concurring opinions that did not always endorse every aspect of Roberts’s reasoning: Clarence Thomas agreed with immunity but used his separate concurrence to question the special counsel’s appointment; Amy Coney Barrett emphasized a two‑step approach for lower courts to determine whether particular acts are immune, illustrating internal disagreements about how the majority framework should be applied in practice [7] [6].