Trump v. United States (2024)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
The case asked whether a former President is immune from federal criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. The Supreme Court held that a President has absolute immunity from prosecution for core constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. The Court remanded the case to determine which of Trump’s alleged actions fell into each category.

3) Why It Mattered
This was the first Supreme Court ruling directly addressing criminal liability of a former President. It defined the scope of presidential immunity, shaping future prosecutions and the balance of executive accountability.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: Recognition that Presidents are shielded from prosecution for official duties, at least in part.
• Took Away: The idea that Presidents can be prosecuted for all acts committed in office without distinction.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
Critics saw it as judicial overreach that placed Presidents above the law. Supporters argued it was necessary to preserve the independence and effectiveness of the presidency.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
Former Presidents can’t be charged for carrying out core presidential duties. But they can be prosecuted for private or unofficial acts. Courts now must sort out which category specific actions fall into.

• Presidency
• Executive Power
• Immunity
• Separation of Powers