Could Congress or state legislatures change rules about presidential immunity after the Nov 2025 ruling?
Executive summary
Congress can propose laws but cannot easily overturn the Supreme Court’s new immunity doctrine on its own; only a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court decision can fully undo the high court’s holdings (sources discuss Congress’s actions and court primacy) [1] [2]. Some members of Congress have already proposed a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling, but passage requires two-thirds of both houses and ratification by three-quarters of the states — a steep political and procedural hurdle [2].
1. The ruling changed the battlefield: courts, not Congress, now shape immunity
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States held that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for “core” presidential powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts, shifting the primary legal question into the judicial sphere and limiting Congress’s straightforward ability to strip that immunity by statute [1] [3].
2. What Congress can do — and what it cannot do by ordinary statute
Congress can pass criminal statutes and alter federal criminal definitions, but available legal commentary and analyses indicate that ordinary legislation cannot directly nullify a constitutional or judicially defined immunity that the Supreme Court grounded in Article II principles; the Court’s decision forecloses simple statutory repeal as a means to eliminate the immunity doctrine [1] [3].
3. The constitutional-amendment route: possible but politically steep
House Democrats have already introduced and cosponsored a proposed “Presidential Accountability Amendment” to reverse the immunity ruling, showing the political route being pursued; reversing a Supreme Court constitutional interpretation in this manner requires approval by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states, a very high bar reflected in the legislative action reported by Rep. Terri Sewell [2].
4. Litigation and the slow churn of courts as an alternative
The decision does not end all litigation about presidential conduct; lower courts will apply the new standards, and future cases can narrow or overrule the doctrine. Scholars note the Court’s shift makes the judiciary the “starring role” in these disputes and that the immunity holding could be revisited by future courts or another Supreme Court majority [1] [4].
5. State legislatures — constitutional limits and tactical levers
State legislatures cannot directly overturn a federal constitutional interpretation, and the doctrine of intergovernmental supremacy constrains states from enacting laws that would impede federal executive functions. Some state prosecutions and state court proceedings (for acts not deemed “official” by federal standards) may still proceed depending on how courts apply the immunity test, but the Supreme Court’s framework limits state solutions to narrower, case-by-case approaches rather than a broad nullification [1] [3].
6. Political remedies short of legal repeal
Beyond statutes and amendments, political accountability remains: impeachment and criminal prosecution while in office were discussed historically; commentators and advocacy groups argue that the Court’s ruling reduces the feasibility of post-presidential prosecutions and elevates political remedies (e.g., elections, impeachment) — though the sources disagree on whether impeachment alone suffices and note the tension between political and legal accountability [5] [6].
7. Rapid reactions: who is pushing what now
Democratic lawmakers have proposed a constitutional amendment to restore criminal accountability for presidents; civil liberties and legal-watch groups condemned the Court’s decision as placing presidents “above the law,” while other commentators emphasized separation-of-powers concerns that informed the majority opinion [2] [6] [3].
8. Practical timeline and likely outcomes
Passing an amendment is slow; litigation to test the boundaries of “official acts” will be the near-term route for change. Analysts warn the practical effect of the ruling is to delay or complicate prosecutions rather than to end all accountability, and they predict protracted litigation over what counts as core versus other official actions [7] [8].
Limitations and transparency: available sources do not mention specific new federal statutes passed after the November 2025 ruling that change immunity rules, and they do not provide a definitive legal formula for how a future Congress might draft a statute to survive judicial review; those outcomes would depend on future legislation and court findings (not found in current reporting).