Britannica Sources used in this answer

How did Trump v. United States define presidential immunity from criminal prosecution?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

A person ascends the steps of the west facade of the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., with its tall columns and a round fountain in the foreground. — Major Supreme Court Cases from the 2025–26 Term The west facade of the U.S. Supreme Court building, Washington, D.C.

In Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court clarified the scope of presidential immunity regarding criminal prosecution for acts performed while in office. The Court held that former presidents possess the following levels of protection:12

Absolute Immunity: Presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken within the scope of their core constitutional powers.12
Presumptive Immunity: Presidents are entitled to presumptive immunity for all other official acts. Such acts may be prosecuted only if the government can demonstrate that applying a criminal prohibition would not pose dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.1
No Immunity: There is no immunity for a president’s unofficial acts.1

The Court did not provide a definitive, exhaustive list of what constitutes an "official" act. Instead, it established general principles for lower courts to apply, noting that presidents act officially when performing functions of their office pursuant to constitutional and statutory authority. Furthermore, the Court specified that in distinguishing between official and unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into a president’s motives or deem an action unofficial simply because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.1