Your fact-checks will appear here
Congressional and advocacy responses to the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity
’s recent emergency-docket activity has mostly shaped how lower courts can block ’s executive orders rather than definitively resolving the constitutionality of those orders themselves, narrowing nati...
’s 1827 decision in has long been read to grant the President conclusive authority to decide when exigent conditions justify calling forth the militia, a holding that courts and advocates cite to argu...
rejected the claim that a president has complete, categorical immunity from criminal prosecution, instead carving out absolute immunity for a narrow set of “core” constitutional powers and at‑least pr...
The Supreme Court’s decision carving out immunity contours for presidential “official acts” has narrowed the immediate criminal pathway against a sitting or former President but did not eliminate Cong...
The Supreme Court in Trump v. United States set a three-tiered framework that leaves lower courts to apply fact-specific tests to decide whether a presidential action is “official” and therefore presu...
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...