If immunity is lost, what legal consequences could Trump face and what are likely next steps?
Executive summary
A judicial finding that presidential immunity does not bar prosecution would reopen parts of the federal cases against Donald Trump that the Supreme Court either protected or left unresolved, allowing prosecutors to seek indictment counts or evidence previously shielded by the immunity ruling [1] [2]. That outcome would kick off detailed fact-intensive litigation over which acts were “official” and could lead to trials in one or more of the pending criminal matters, though courts and commentators expect lengthy pretrial wrangling and likely delays [3] [4].
1. What “losing immunity” legally means: a narrow doorway, not an automatic conviction
A court conclusion that specific acts fall outside the constitutional immunity the Supreme Court described would simply remove a legal barrier to prosecution for those acts; it does not convert allegation into guilt but allows prosecutors to present evidence and pursue criminal charges in court [2] [1]. The high court created three conceptual categories—core absolute immunity, presumptive immunity for the outer perimeter of official acts, and no immunity for unofficial conduct—so loss of immunity for particular conduct requires factfinding about where each act sits on that spectrum [5] [6].
2. Immediate legal consequences: indictments, evidence, and revived counts
If immunity is found not to apply to specific conduct, prosecutors such as special counsel Jack Smith could seek to revive counts or use evidence that the immunity ruling had constrained, including allegations tied to leveraging the Justice Department or pressuring officials, subject to whatever limits the courts impose [7] [4]. The Supreme Court’s decision already directed some allegations to be reconsidered by the lower courts, meaning judges must now parse which parts of indictments are prosecutable and which remain off-limits under the immunity framework [8] [2].
3. The procedural road ahead: remands, tests, and lengthy litigation
Lower courts will conduct intensive, fact-specific proceedings to decide whether each challenged act was official or private — a process legal experts say is likely to generate protracted litigation, evidentiary fights, and appeals that can push trials far into the future [3] [1]. The Supreme Court’s remand instructions and the two-tier immunity concept practically guarantee litigation over evidentiary scope and legal standards; commentators and organizations warn this will “mire the case” in years of disputes unless prosecutors can clear high legal thresholds [7] [5].
4. Which cases would be affected and collateral criminal exposure
The primary immediate beneficiary of a loss of immunity ruling would be the federal election-subversion matter handled by the special counsel, but the ruling’s contours could affect other federal matters where Trump’s lawyers have raised immunity claims — for example, prosecutions relating to classified documents or state charges like the Georgia election inquiry depend on distinct legal rules and would be resolved separately [4] [3]. Reporting cautions that the Supreme Court’s immunity holding did not exonerate Trump across the board and that other prosecutions remain viable and subject to their own procedural paths [4].
5. Likely next steps from prosecutors, defense, and the courts
Prosecutors will test the remanded evidentiary questions in district court, try to demonstrate that contested acts were unofficial or beyond presidential power, and seek rulings that allow trials to proceed; defense teams will press for dismissal or narrow discovery and immediately appeal adverse rulings, creating a cascade of litigation that could reach appellate courts again [2] [6]. Judicial actors will be asked to apply the Supreme Court’s mostly novel standards in typically fact-heavy hearings, a process observers say will favor further delay and incremental rulings rather than a single, swift resolution [3] [1].
6. The broader stakes: accountability, precedent, and politics
Beyond any single prosecution, the question of whether immunity yields to criminal law carries institutional stakes: critics warn the new immunity framework risks shielding presidential misconduct and invites constitutional amendments or legislative responses, while supporters see it as a reaffirmation of executive prerogatives — both arguments frame how future courts, Congress and prosecutors will approach enforcement against a president or former president [9] [10] [7].