Supreme Court weighs whether former presidents enjoy criminal immunity in Trump case

The Supreme Court heard argument in Trump v. United States, case 23939, over whether a former president may enjoy criminal immunity for official acts. Petitioner counsel Mister Sauer told the Court that "without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it," arguing the executive vesting clause and historical practice require courts to shield a president’s official acts from criminal liability.

The government, represented by Mister Dreeben, urged the justices not to adopt a sweeping immunity rule. "This court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official," Dreeben said, urging the Court to preserve accountability where official power is misused for private gain and to rely on existing safeguards such as statutory construction doctrines, grand-jury review and established defenses.

Why this matters: The decision could determine whether a former president can be criminally prosecuted for actions taken while in office or whether some official acts are effectively insulated unless Congress speaks with particular clarity. Justices questioned both sides about concrete hypotheticals — from appointing an ambassador in exchange for payment to ordering violence or using the military — and pressed on how to define an "official act."

Petitioner’s argument and proposed process Mister Sauer framed the central claim around the…