Supreme Court Grants Broad Presidential Immunity in Trump v. United States, Creating King-Like Powers

Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within their “core constitutional powers,” presumptive immunity for “official acts” within the outer perimeter of their responsibilities, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Chief Justice Roberts authored the 43-page majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, all Federalist Society members or affiliates. The decision came in Trump’s challenge to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution for attempting to overturn the 2020 election. Roberts’s opinion takes a sweeping view of “official responsibilities,” stating immunity covers actions “so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.” Critically, courts cannot consider a president’s motives or designate acts as unofficial simply because they allegedly violate the law. The ruling establishes that core constitutional powers including pardons, vetoes, ambassador recognition, and appointments receive absolute immunity. For other official acts, prosecutors must rebut a presumption of immunity, a nearly insurmountable burden. The decision remanded the case to district court for further proceedings; the prosecution was ultimately dismissed following Trump’s 2024 election victory. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson, condemned the majority for reshaping the presidency and planting “the seeds of absolute power.” She warned the decision immunizes presidents from prosecution for ordering assassinations of political rivals, organizing coups, or taking bribes for pardons. Justice Jackson wrote separately that the majority creates “absolute power” for presidents previously constrained by law. Roberts dismissed the dissents as striking “a chilling tone of doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.” The decision represents an unprecedented expansion of executive power with no basis in constitutional text, history, or precedent. For over 200 years, the threat of criminal prosecution deterred presidential lawbreaking; Trump v. United States removes that constraint. The ruling enables autocratic behavior by placing vast swaths of presidential conduct beyond legal accountability, fulfilling warnings that the Roberts Court would entrench authoritarian power. Combined with the Court’s decisions gutting voting rights, enabling unlimited political money, and dismantling the administrative state, Trump v. United States completes the judicial architecture for plutocratic authoritarianism.