Can a US President be charged with a felony while in office?

1. The historical and institutional blank spot: no precedent, high stakes

Criminal charges have never been filed against a sitting president, so there is no direct Supreme Court precedent deciding the permissibility of such a prosecution, leaving the question unresolved and uniquely constitutional in consequence ^{[1] [3]}.

2. What the Justice Department actually says and does: policy, not statute

Since the 1970s the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel has maintained a policy view that a sitting president cannot be indicted because a prosecution would impermissibly undermine the president’s capacity to perform the executive’s constitutional duties, and that policy continues to guide federal prosecutors’ conduct ^{[2] [5]}.

3. The scholarly and judicial counterweight: arguments for indictment exist

Prominent legal scholars and some court commentary dispute the OLC’s reading, arguing the Constitution does not expressly bar criminal prosecution of a president, that prosecutors may investigate and potentially indict, and that relying solely on impeachment would leave serious crimes unpunished if political processes fail ^{[4] [6] [7]}.

4. What courts have decided on immunity in related settings

The Supreme Court has pared back sweeping claims of presidential immunity in other contexts — for example, holding presidents are not categorically immune from civil suits for unofficial acts — but it has not resolved the question of criminal prosecution of a sitting president, leaving only analogies and fragments of guidance from cases and lower-court rulings ^{[8] [1]}.

5. Practical reality for prosecutors: investigation yes, prosecution practically no

Under current Department of Justice practice federal prosecutors can investigate a sitting president and amass evidence, but the OLC position has historically been interpreted to bar actual indictment or trial while the president remains in office, meaning prosecutors typically defer charging decisions until after a presidency or pursue alternative avenues ^{[2] [3] [9]}.

6. The counter-argument about accountability and timing

Critics of the DOJ’s policy warn it creates a potentially dangerous immunity gap: if indictment must wait until after exit from office, defendants could evade justice by running out statutes of limitations or by obstructing post‑term prosecutions; those critics urge courts or Congress to provide clearer rules to prevent a presidency from becoming a shield for serious crimes ^{[3] [4]}.

7. Where the dispute could be settled — and why parties tread carefully

Because the question sits at the intersection of separation of powers, constitutional text, and criminal enforcement, only a live prosecution—likely resisted by the executive and litigated up to the Supreme Court—or explicit congressional legislation would force a definitive judicial ruling; until then the OLC’s policy will remain the practical brake on federal indictments of sitting presidents ^{[1] [2] [6]}.

8. Bottom line answer

Legally unresolved but practically constrained: a sitting U.S. president has not been charged with a felony, the DOJ’s longstanding OLC opinion counsels against indicting a president while in office and governs federal practice, and significant legal disagreement remains about whether the Constitution actually forbids such prosecution — meaning that, absent new judicial or legislative development, federal felony charges against a sitting president are unlikely in practice though not settled as a matter of law ^{[1] [2] [4]}.