Fact check: What are the legal protections for former US presidents?

1. Summary of the results

Former US presidents enjoy significant legal protections established through recent Supreme Court precedent and historical executive privilege doctrines. The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling grants former presidents absolute immunity from prosecution for actions within their constitutional authority and presumptive immunity for official acts ^[1]. This historic decision means that former presidents have significant protection from criminal prosecution ^[2], with the Court holding that under the constitutional structure of separated powers, former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for actions within conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority ^[3].

Beyond criminal immunity, former presidents also benefit from executive privilege protections, which while not explicitly stated in the US Constitution, have been established through court decisions, particularly in the 1970s involving former President Nixon ^[4]. This privilege traditionally protects presidential communications and documents from disclosure.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question fails to capture the intense controversy and constitutional concerns surrounding these protections. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the Supreme Court's judgment elevates the president to 'a king above the law' ^[2], highlighting significant judicial dissent on this issue.

Civil liberties organizations, particularly the ACLU, argue that the Supreme Court's decision sets a dangerous precedent, granting presidents immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office and undermining the principle that no person is above the law ^[5]. They contend this gives presidents a free pass for past crimes and makes it difficult to hold them accountable for future actions ^[5].

The protections have far-reaching implications beyond just former presidents, as the decision may inhibit the prosecution of subordinate officials and cast a shadow on the prosecution of other officials, due to new evidentiary rules of uncertain breadth ^[6].

Alternative accountability mechanisms exist despite these immunities, including civil lawsuits, congressional oversight, and the ballot box as ways to check presidential power ^[5].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral but omits the highly contentious nature of these legal protections. It fails to acknowledge that these protections are recent developments rather than long-established constitutional principles, and doesn't mention the significant legal and political opposition to the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.

The question also doesn't address the practical limitations of these protections - while criminal immunity is broad, executive privilege can be waived, as demonstrated when the Trump White House waived executive privilege for nine former senior Biden aides ^[7], showing these protections are not absolute in all circumstances.

Legal scholars and civil rights organizations would benefit from highlighting the controversial nature of these protections, while supporters of expanded executive power benefit from framing these as necessary constitutional protections for the presidency.