The question
Whether, and to what extent, a former President is immune from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his time in office.
Trump v. United States
What the Court decided
The Court held that a former President has some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. He has absolute immunity for actions within his core constitutional powers, at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. The case, arising from the federal prosecution over the 2020 election, was sent back to the lower courts to sort the President's conduct into those categories.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
The separation of powers requires that a former President be immune from prosecution for exercising his core constitutional functions, and presumptively immune for the rest of his official conduct, so that fear of later prosecution does not distort a sitting President's decisions. Courts may not examine a President's official acts, or his motives for them, to build a criminal case. Unofficial conduct gets no immunity.
Concurring in part
Barrett, writing alone
Barrett agreed the President has immunity for core functions but wrote separately, declining to join the part of the opinion that barred using a President's official acts as evidence of an unofficial crime.
Dissenting
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
The dissent argued the decision places the President above the law by inventing a broad criminal immunity found nowhere in the Constitution. It warned that shielding official acts, and barring their use as evidence, lets a President order crimes through official channels without accountability.
How we know · 4 sourced claims
The Court held a former President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his core constitutional authority.
Source: syllabus, Held, at 23-939
A former President has at least presumptive immunity for other official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts.
Source: syllabus, Held
The case was vacated and remanded for the lower courts to categorize the alleged conduct.
Source: syllabus
Roberts, C.J., wrote for the Court; Sotomayor, J., dissented, joined by Kagan and Jackson, JJ.; Barrett, J., joined all but Part III-C.
Source: syllabus, lineup