Your fact-checks will appear here
The concept of presidential immunity in the US and its implications.
A definitive legal ruling does not exist: no sitting president has ever been federally indicted, and the has never squarely decided whether a president can be criminally prosecuted while in office . T...
president can be sued in federal court for unofficial or private conduct, but is afforded broad immunity for official acts; the contours of criminal prosecution while in office remain unresolved and h...
’s lawsuits against have pushed into sharp relief how civil law can hold powerful public figures accountable for both alleged sexual misconduct and the public denials that follow, producing trial ruli...
is a bundle of confidentiality doctrines the President uses to withhold certain internal communications; is a separate doctrine shielding official acts from civil or criminal process in limited circum...
Since ’s decision in v. , lower courts have been directed to apply a newly articulated multi‑tier immunity framework—absolute immunity for certain “core” presidential powers, presumptive immunity for ...
The civil-immunity framework became the keystone precedent both sides invoked in v. : defenders argued Fitzgerald’s recognition of absolute immunity for official acts supported sweeping protection fro...
held that a president enjoys absolute immunity for core official acts, presumptive immunity for acts within the “outer perimeter” of official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts, creat...