Your fact-checks will appear here
A Supreme Court case that established the principle that presidents may be subject to subpoenas or other judicial process.
The Supreme Court’s current doctrine holds that a president (including a former president) enjoys absolute criminal immunity for exercises of “core” or “conclusive and preclusive” presidential powers ...
The Constitution provides as the chief constitutional mechanism for removing a sitting president, while the Justice Department historically treats a sitting president as immune from criminal indictmen...
against presidents or former presidents rests on two tracks: criminal contempt referral to the and civil enforcement through the federal courts, with a rare and practically unused third option of "inh...
The ’s 2024 decision in v. held that presidents enjoy absolute criminal immunity for acts that fall within their “core” or exclusive constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for other official acts...
and related privileges shape which lawsuits can proceed, which acts are insulated, and how courts balance separation-of-powers concerns against accountability; the law gives absolute civil immunity fo...
Legal scholars reading the Constitution treated the third article of impeachment not as a narrow criminal-count but as an assertion of the House’s political-remedial power to police abuses of office—i...
The Supreme Court’s civil-law precedents center on a binary: absolute immunity for official acts touching the “outer perimeter” of presidential duties, and no special immunity for unofficial or pre‑pr...
The constitutional and legal landscape leaves meaningful non‑criminal paths for holding a former president to account if prosecutors cannot bring or sustain criminal charges: civil litigation, impeach...