Fact check: What is the history of presidential immunity in the US?

1. Summary of the results

The history of presidential immunity in the United States has evolved through two major Supreme Court decisions that established different types of protection for presidents.

Civil Immunity ^[1]: The foundation of presidential immunity was established in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, where the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that presidents have absolute immunity from civil damages for actions taken within the "outer perimeter" of their official responsibilities ^{[2] [3]}. This case involved A. Ernest Fitzgerald suing Richard Nixon over his alleged dismissal from the Air Force, and the Court reasoned that civil liability would distract presidents from executing their constitutional duties ^[2].

Criminal Immunity ^[4]: The Supreme Court significantly expanded presidential immunity in Trump v. United States, establishing that former President Trump has absolute immunity for core official acts and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, including his attempts to use the Justice Department to obstruct election results ^{[5] [6]}. This landmark decision placed presidents above criminal prosecution for a broad range of official conduct ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial distinctions and limitations that legal experts emphasize:

Key Limitations: The 1982 Nixon v. Fitzgerald decision explicitly stated that presidential immunity does not protect against criminal prosecution or impeachment ^[3]. Legal experts in 2024 highlighted that civil immunity does not automatically extend to criminal immunity, making the recent Supreme Court decision particularly significant ^[7].

Institutional Impact: The American Civil Liberties Union and other legal observers argue that the 2024 decision has significant implications for the institution of the Presidency and the rule of law ^[8]. The ACLU specifically contends that this ruling places presidents "above the law" for official acts ^[5].

Scope of Protection: The immunity framework distinguishes between different categories of presidential actions - with absolute protection for "core" constitutional functions, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for private conduct. This nuanced approach was not present in the original civil immunity doctrine ^[6].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, as it simply asks for historical information. However, the question's broad framing could lead to incomplete understanding without proper context about:

• The fundamental difference between civil and criminal immunity, which developed 42 years apart
• The recent and controversial nature of criminal immunity, which was only established in 2024 and has generated significant legal and political debate
• The specific limitations that still apply, including vulnerability to impeachment and lack of protection for private acts

The analyses reveal that different stakeholders have varying perspectives on these developments, with civil liberties organizations like the ACLU viewing the expansion as problematic for democratic accountability ^[5], while the Supreme Court majority justified it as necessary for effective presidential functioning ^[6].