The Constitutional Case for Presidential Immunity
A retrospective of the most consequential and misunderstood landmark Supreme Court decision in modern history.
Every generation of American citizens witnesses a handful of landmark Supreme Court rulings that change the course of the country's future. For Generation Z, there are several cases that they have grown up witnessing where, if you just say part of the case’s name, they will immediately recognize the association: Cases like Citizens United (Election Campaign Funding, 2010), Obergfell (legalizing same-sex Marriage, 2015), or Dobbs (abortion being unconstitutional at the federal level, overturning Roe v. Wade, 2022). In cases such as these, or others in recent history, whether they agree or disagree with the ruling most people have a general understanding of the implications. However, it is not often that the general public doesn’t just not understand the ruling, but actually has a view of the ruling that is not congruent with reality.
There is no better example of this than the case of Trump v. United States (2024). This landmark ruling, released one year ago today, established precedent legally recognizing the concept of Presidential Immunity. Following this ruling, many high profile political commentators, particularly on the Left (e.g., Harry Sisson and Matt Bernstein) made outlandish claims stating the President would have free reign to do whatever he (or she?) desires, such as assassinating a political rival, and face zero consequences. The same day as the ruling, then-President Joe Biden reacted to the Immunity Ruling in an address to the Nation. Here is an excerpt from his speech:
“With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all — for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. This is a fundamentally new principle, and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States. The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.”
These claims are absolute nonsense. Not only does the concept of Presidential Immunity fall in line with Constitutional Law, but the precedent it sets is nowhere near as broad as it is being made out to be. In this article, I am going to explain the background of the immunity debate, why Presidential Immunity is constitutional, and the actual legal implications of the precedent.
What Led to This Ruling
On August 1, 2023, a grand jury handed Donald Trump his third indictment on the grounds of alleged election obstruction (stay tuned for that article this Friday). On October 5, 2023, Trump's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, citing presidential immunity under Nixon v. Fitzgerald. Two months later December 1, 2023, Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Judge overseeing the prosecution, published a memorandum opinion on immunity ultimately rejecting the motion to dismiss on immunity grounds.
On December 7, Trump filed a notice to appeal Chutkan's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and moved to pause the case pending the appeal. That same month, on December 11th, the special counsel petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to skip the appeals court and resolve the immunity dispute on an expedited basis. This rare step was an effort to keep the trial on schedule. However, on December 22nd, a Supreme Court Order was released officially denying the special counsel's request, leaving the case to the appeals court.
On February 6, 2024, a 3-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the District Court’s ruling. That same month, Trump filed a petition to appeal to the Supreme Court, which they officially granted on February 28th. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments two months later on April 25, 2024, and then the Court made its official ruling later that summer on July 1st.
The Case for Immunity
The Constitutional Precedent
The core points of Trump’s Immunity Claim were laid out by his attorney John Sauer based on the following Constitutional Clauses and past Court Rulings that set the legal standards for Presidential Immunity:
The Executive Vesting Clause: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows,”
This clause lays out clearly that all powers recognized by Article II that are granted to the Presidency all classify as official acts
Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts.
This means a president cannot be sued for actions taken while in office that fall within the "outer perimeter" of their duties.
The Court reasoned that this immunity was necessary to protect the president's ability to carry out his/her duties without fear of constant litigation.
Clinton v. Jones (1997): In a unanimous ruling, The Constitution does not protect the President from federal civil litigation involving actions committed before entering office. There is no requirement to stay the case until the President leaves office.
A former or sitting President can face civil litigation prior to their four to eight year term in office.
The Opinion of the Court
In a 6-3 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority Opinion of the Court for the immunity ruling. Roberts held that the Constitution does entitle a former President to criminal immunity for official acts taken during his/her presidency, with the type and extent of immunity depending on the nature of those acts. This ruling is rooted in the constitutional structure of separated powers. The Court emphasized the need to preserve the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch. Chief Justice Roberts further addressed the threat that prosecution could create a "pall of potential prosecution" that would chill presidential decision-making, impairing the "energetic" executive envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution.
This excerpt from his ruling summarizes the decision perfectly:
“The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
This lays the foundation perfectly for the three tiers of Immunity Roberts established, which fall perfectly in line with the Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch:
Absolute Immunity
Roberts stated in the Opinion of the Court:
“We conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.”
This tier applies to presidential conduct that falls within the President’s "exclusive," "conclusive and preclusive" constitutional powers under Article II. These are powers the Constitution assigns solely to the President, with no oversight or shared authority from Congress or the courts. Because these powers are uniquely presidential, subjecting them to criminal prosecution would violate the separation of powers. Congress cannot criminalize their use, and courts cannot evaluate the wisdom or motives behind them.
As established by the Executive Vesting Clause, powers that would fall under absolute immunity would include:
Granting Executive Clemency (Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 1)
Recognizing foreign governments (e.g., Zivotofsky v. Kerry)
Appointing / Removing executive officers
Directing prosecutions or investigations through DOJ
Presumptive Immunity
Chief Justice Roberts went on further to state:
“At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion...”
This tier covers official acts that are not exclusive to the President, but which are still part of his/her official constitutional or statutory duties. In this tier, the President is presumed immune from prosecution unless the Government can rebut that presumption. Although the President is acting officially, these areas involve overlapping authority with Congress (e.g., elections, certification of votes, administrative functions), so immunity is not automatic. Still, the risk of chilling presidential decision-making justifies strong protection unless prosecution poses no danger to the Executive’s functioning.
Examples of Presumptive Immunity include:
Conversations with the Vice President about how to handle the electoral vote count
Public statements regarding federal policy or national events (i.e., State of the Union, Address to the Nation)
Directing or advising government agencies on policy matters (i.e., Executive Orders, Presidential Memoranda)
To overcome the presumption of immunity, prosecutors must show that criminalizing the act poses no intrusion on the Executive Branch’s constitutional functions.
No Immunity
For this third tier, Chief Justice Roberts states, “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.”
This tier applies to conduct that is unofficial or private in nature, even if performed while the President is in office. Here, the President has no immunity and may be prosecuted like any other citizen. Because these actions are not part of the President’s official responsibilities, they do not implicate separation-of-powers concerns. The President acting in a personal or political capacity does not warrant constitutional protection.
Examples of Unofficial Acts:
Personal business dealings or financial misconduct
Campaign activities (even if political speech is involved)
Actions as a candidate, not as President
Incitement or conspiracy undertaken outside of official duties
The Impeachment Clause: Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors
What this Means for the Presidency
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States is a monumental precedent that will permanently shape the contours of presidential accountability, executive independence, and the role of the judiciary in policing executive conduct. The legal framework established by Chief Justice Roberts effectively does two things: it clarifies the constitutional limits of presidential immunity, and it reinforces the integrity of the separation of powers doctrine in criminal contexts.
By formally recognizing the tiers of immunity, the Court provides future courts with a clear structure for how to analyze presidential conduct when criminal liability is alleged. This structure is not a blanket shield for lawless behavior; rather, it recognizes that not everything a President does is “official,” and not everything “official” is immune from review. Instead of giving the President unlimited power, the ruling draws a constitutional line between legitimate governance and personal misconduct, requiring careful judicial analysis at every step.
For future Presidents, this ruling reinforces the importance of keeping official duties and personal or political ventures distinct. While the President must be free to exercise core powers without fearing legal reprisal, that freedom does not extend to personal ambition or unlawful interference disguised as governance. The ruling also signals to prosecutors and courts that they must tread carefully when bringing criminal charges against a President (either sitting or former), ensuring that legitimate political decisions are not reclassified as crimes out of partisan hostility.
In that way, Trump v. United States actually strengthens our constitutional system. It reaffirms that no one is above the law—not even the President—but that the law itself must respect the structural protections of the presidency. In an era of increasing polarization and prosecutorial escalation, the Court has laid down a guidepost: presidential accountability must be lawful, not political; fair, not vengeful; constitutional, not convenient.
Ultimately, this ruling is not a license for tyranny—it is a guardrail for constitutional order. It reminds us that defending the rule of law also means defending the office through which the law is faithfully executed. And it ensures that no matter who sits in the Oval Office, the structure of our Republic remains intact. In the end, while this landmark decision by the Supreme Court serves as a historic victory for Donald Trump, it also more broadly serves as a lasting constitutional safeguard for the future of the Office of the American Presidency.
Thank you for taking the time to read! If you enjoyed it and wish to support my future work, you can tip me at this link: https://buymeacoffee.com/timelinesandheadlines
Thank you so much!
Well argued and written! Good stuff!