Why is Donald Trump allowed to break the law and violate the Constitution?

1. Why some observers say Trump appears to act with impunity: a new immunity framework that matters

The most consequential legal development is the Supreme Court’s articulation of presidential immunity in Trump v. United States, which created a three‑tiered immunity test—absolute protection for core constitutional functions, presumptive protection for other official acts, and no immunity for private acts—thereby narrowing the window for criminal prosecution of on‑duty presidential actions. Legal advocates such as the ACLU interpret that ruling as effectively granting broad protection for presidents’ official acts, a dynamic they argue will shield Trump and future presidents from many criminal charges where conduct can be framed as within official duties ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The CRS explainer details how this doctrine is applied in practice and stresses it is a judicial construction that does not equate to a constitutional license to violate the law, but it clearly raises burdens for prosecutors ^{[2] [4]}.

2. Why prosecutors and courts still pursue cases: indictments, convictions, and dismissals tell a mixed story

Despite immunity contours, federal and state prosecutors have pursued multiple indictments against Trump, producing diverse outcomes: a New York conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records resulted in an unusual unconditional discharge; federal cases in Florida and D.C. were dismissed; a Georgia prosecution is ongoing with pretrial litigation affecting the district attorney’s participation ^{[3] [5] [6]}. These cases show the criminal justice system is active and capable of producing convictions, dismissals, or procedural obstacles; the practical effect is a patchwork of legal accountability rather than total immunity, and the mixed results fuel both claims of selective enforcement and claims that the system is functioning despite political pressure ^{[3] [6]}.

3. Political and institutional constraints: why Congress, DOJ norms, and elections matter

Beyond judicial rulings, enforcement against a former or sitting president is constrained by political and institutional realities: impeachment requires congressional majorities and is a politically fraught remedy; the DOJ’s internal norms, leadership choices, and fear of being seen as partisan affect charging decisions; and elections can change the incentives for prosecutors and investigators. Senator Gary Peters’ report cataloging alleged executive overreach frames these actions as systemic threats to the rule of law and calls for institutional reforms, but the report itself is political and intended to motivate oversight, illustrating how accountability mechanisms are shaped by partisan agendas and competing institutional interpretations ^{[7] [8]}.

4. Divergent legal interpretations: scholars and advocacy groups disagree about the meaning of precedent

Scholars split on whether the Court’s immunity approach protects presidents from criminal liability in practice or simply raises proof burdens. Supporters of prosecution argue the Constitution does not create a criminal carve‑out and that the impeachment clause is not an exclusive remedy; critics warn that broad immunity risks creating a functional executive unaccountable to law. Think tanks and legal reviewers offered competing readings in 2024, with Brookings emphasizing the unsettled nature of the law and the importance of careful judicial limit‑setting, while civil liberties advocates emphasize immediate chilling effects for accountability ^{[4] [1] [2]}. These scholarly debates affect how prosecutors assess charges and how courts define "official" versus "personal" acts.

5. The bottom line: law, politics, and reform options are all part of the explanation

The factual picture is that Trump has been the subject of multiple indictments and at least one conviction, while a Supreme Court framework has simultaneously limited the ease of pursuing criminal cases for presidential conduct; the result is neither carte blanche to violate law nor effective, uniform accountability. Calls for reform—whether statutory clarification of presidential immunity, changes to DOJ policy, or congressional oversight—reflect widely divergent priorities and would require political support to implement. The public debate is therefore a contest between those who see judicial precedent as creating dangerous gaps in accountability and those who view it as a necessary protection for vigorous executive decision‑making; both perspectives are grounded in concrete legal developments and prosecutorial choices documented in recent reporting and analysis ^{[6] [8] [2]}.