Does trump have complete immunity

1. The Court’s map: absolute, presumptive, and none

Chief Justice Roberts’ majority established a three‑part framework: absolute immunity for actions squarely within the President’s exclusive constitutional authorities (a narrow “core”), a presumption of immunity for other official acts that can be rebutted by showing no danger of intruding on executive functions, and no immunity for purely private or unofficial conduct—so immunity is categorical in form but limited in scope, not total or unlimited ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

2. What “core” powers look like and why they matter

The opinion identifies examples of core powers—pardon decisions, recognition of ambassadors, appointment and removal decisions—where the President’s discretion is “conclusive and preclusive” and thus shielded absolutely from criminal inquiry, because subjecting those acts to prosecution would intrude on separation‑of‑powers interests, a rationale the Court tied to prior precedents ^{[3] [2] [5]}.

3. The presumption for other official acts leaves the door open

For many other acts that are “official” but not in the exclusive constitutional sphere, the Court created a rebuttable presumption of immunity: prosecutors must show that applying criminal law would pose “no danger” of intruding on executive authority before a trial can proceed; that factual, case‑specific inquiry will be resolved in the lower courts, meaning many prosecutions could be delayed or narrowed but are not foreclosed ^{[6] [2] [7]}.

4. No immunity for private actions or personal criminality

The decision reaffirms that non‑official, private conduct by a president carries no immunity; where alleged acts fall outside official duties they remain prosecutable—this is the line that preserved at least some liability exposure even as the Court expanded protections for official acts ^{[2] [1]}.

5. Immediate effect on Trump’s cases: delay, not guaranteed dismissal

The ruling does not declare Trump absolutely immune from all charges; instead it remands factual questions—whether particular acts were official, whether they fall within the “core,” and whether the prosecution can overcome the presumption—to lower courts, a procedural posture likely to delay trials and force complex factual battles but not necessarily to terminate prosecutions outright ^{[7] [6] [4]}.

6. Critics, dissents, and institutional stakes

Legal critics and dissenting justices warned the majority’s framework creates a heavy presumption favoring executive exemption that could insulate misconduct—civil liberties groups described the ruling as putting presidents “substantially above the law,” while dissenters argued the decision is a “one‑way ratchet” that marginalizes Congress’s role and may undercut accountability ^{[8] [9] [10]}.

7. Bottom line: not complete immunity, but materially broader protection

The correct summary: former President Trump does not have complete, carte blanche immunity from criminal prosecution; the Supreme Court granted absolute immunity for a limited set of core constitutional acts and a strong presumption of immunity for other official actions, leaving many contested decisions to lower courts and prosecutors to rebut the presumption where the case‑specific record permits ^{[2] [1] [6]}.