What legal protections or immunities apply to former U.S. presidents?

1. What the Supreme Court actually held — a new three-part rubric

In a 6–3 decision, the Court adopted a three-tier framework: absolute immunity for “core” constitutional powers, at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. The opinion places the initial burden on recognizing official status and then allows trial courts to assess whether prosecution would impermissibly intrude on presidential functions; the ruling applied that framework to find absolute immunity for Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department and presumptive immunity for his interactions with the vice president ^{[2] [3] [5]}.

2. What “core” and “official” mean — the opinion’s unresolved boundaries

Chief Justice Roberts’ majority equates “core” powers with functions like pardons, recognizing ambassadors, appointment and veto powers and other constitutionally enumerated authorities; other conduct that serves an official objective sits on a broader “outer perimeter” that carries presumptive protection ^{[2] [5]}. The opinion does not provide a bright-line test for many common situations — for example, when a speech, communications with state officials, or actions taken while campaigning cross from official into unofficial — and it explicitly leaves such determinations to trial courts ^{[2] [6]}.

3. Immediate, concrete effects on Trump’s cases — narrow wins, many open questions

The Court made two determinations directly tied to Special Counsel charges: Trump was absolutely immune from prosecution for alleged directions to Justice Department officials, and at least presumptively immune for alleged efforts to pressure Vice President Pence — but the fate of remaining charges (e.g., contact with state election officials or private actors) was left unresolved and remanded to lower courts to apply the new framework ^{[3] [4] [2]}.

4. Reactions and political context — starkly divided views

Civil liberties groups and many legal scholars warned the decision risks placing presidents above the law and hampering future accountability, arguing the standards are vague and will produce protracted litigation ^{[4] [7]}. Conservative legal commentators and some policy centers hailed the ruling as a necessary protection of separation of powers and executive decisionmaking ^{[8] [9]}. The Court’s contemporaneous conservative majority and 6–3 split reflect these discordant readings of constitutional risk and institutional prerogative ^{[2] [6]}.

5. How lower courts and prosecutors must proceed under the ruling

Lower courts now must classify conduct as core official, other official, or unofficial and, for conduct deemed presumptively immune, decide whether prosecutors can rebut that presumption by showing prosecution would not intrude on executive authority. That process will generate fact-intensive hearings and is likely to prolong litigation as judges navigate novel questions the Supreme Court left open ^{[3] [5]}.

6. Historical precedents and doctrinal lineage

The decision draws on earlier precedent such as Nixon v. Fitzgerald (absolute immunity for certain official acts in civil suits) and adapts that reasoning into the criminal context; commentators trace continuity and departure from previous cases that limited or qualified immunity for executive officials ^{[10] [11]}. The Court’s reliance on functionalism and separation-of-powers reasoning situates the ruling within established doctrines even as it expands absolute immunity’s criminal reach ^{[11] [9]}.

7. What this ruling does not say — important limits and unknowns

The opinion does not permit categorical immunity for all presidential conduct, nor does it define exhaustive lists of protected acts; the Court expressly left unresolved how immunity applies to actions involving nonfederal actors, campaign activity, or private communications, and it did not decide whether sitting presidents can be criminally prosecuted ^{[2] [1]}. Available sources do not mention a single, definitive test for distinguishing “official” from “unofficial” acts beyond the three-tier framework ^{[3] [5]}.

8. Why this matters for accountability and future presidencies

By shielding core exercises of constitutional power absolutely and tempering review of other official actions, the ruling reduces the immediate prospect of criminal liability for certain high-level decisions and forces prosecutors into a time-consuming rebuttal process — a dynamic critics say could create incentives for abuse, while supporters argue it safeguards vigorous executive action ^{[4] [7] [8]}. The balance between preventing abuses of power and preserving executive independence will be litigated case-by-case in lower courts for years to come ^{[5] [11]}.