The Supreme Court ruled that no president could be found criminally liable for anything they did while carrying out their duties as president.
Posted by Americast, Checked
- Sources
- 3 contradict1 support2 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 85%
AmericastSep 16, 2026
The claim overstates the holding in Trump v. United States: the sources show the Court granted presidents absolute immunity only for core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts, not blanket immunity for anything done in carrying out duties.
What was said
… Now let's look what this does to Donald Trump's relationship with some of the justices on the Supreme Court, because he's had a lot of favorable rulings from them, we should say, and even before he came back to the White House, they ruled that he couldn't be found criminally liable. Well, no president could be found criminally liable for anything that they did as they were carrying out their duties as president. That was a very big win for Donald Trump. But they've issued a couple of defeats recently. I mean, notably, striking down his trade tariffs, saying that he'd used the wrong rules in order to imply them, and now on mail-in voting. …
Americast · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Contradicts. The Supreme Court's holding states there is no immunity for unofficial acts, so presidents can be prosecuted for conduct outside their official duties, contradicting the claim that no president could be criminally liable for anything.[2][3][6]
Contradicts. The Court distinguished absolute immunity for core constitutional powers from only presumptive immunity for other official acts, which is rebuttable, so immunity is not uniform across all duties as the claim implies.[2][3]
Supports. The Court did recognize for the first time some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, so the claim captures a real part of the ruling.[1][2][3]
Context. The Court's dissent and the government's brief argued against any criminal immunity, and the Court remanded questions on the scope of immunity to the trial court.[4][5]
Sources
6 sources: 1 fact-checker, 4 primary, 1 tier 1
- 1US Supreme Court rules Trump has broad immunity from ...reuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 223-939.xmlsupremecourt.gov · primary source · cited for: contradicts, supports
- 3Trump v. United States - Congress.govcongress.gov · primary source · cited for: contradicts, supports
- 4No. 23-624 In the Supreme Court of the United Statesjustice.gov · primary source · cited for: context
- 5Trump v. United States | Supreme Court Bulletin - Law.Cornell.Edulaw.cornell.edu · primary source · cited for: context
- 6トランプ前大統領の「免責」、一部について認める 米連邦最高裁bbc.com · tier 1 · cited for: contradicts
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post