Does Former President Obama Have Immunity? Legal Experts Debate After Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling

In the wake of a sweeping decision from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) granting broad immunity to former presidents for certain official acts, questions have resurfaced over whether former Donald Trump — and by extension, other former presidents such as Barack Obama — are shielded from criminal prosecution for decisions made while in office. The question gained prominence again after a reporter recently asked White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt whether discussions of investigating or prosecuting Obama would be compatible with the Court’s ruling.

On July 1, 2024, SCOTUS delivered a landmark 6–3 decision in Trump v. United States. The Court held that a former president is entitled to immunity for acts taken in the course of official presidential duties. As the majority opinion — authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — explained, under the constitutional structure of separated powers, a president “may not be prosecuted for exercising [their] core constitutional powers,” and enjoys “at least presumptive immunity” for official acts.

However, the ruling also drew a clear line: immunity does not apply to “unofficial acts” — actions outside the scope of officially authorized presidential duties.

What this means for Obama — or any former president — depends on the nature of the actions under scrutiny. If allegations pertain to decisions made within the bounds of his constitutional authority as president (for example, official policy decisions, signing legislation, national security directives, diplomatic matters) then those actions likely fall within the immunity protection outlined by SCOTUS. In that sense, yes — a former president, including Obama, may enjoy immunity for criminal prosecution related to official acts.

But the immunity is not absolute. For acts considered unofficial — personal conduct, private dealings, or other actions outside the core responsibilities of the presidency — the shield does not apply.

Moreover, the Court’s decision leaves important open questions. It did not fully define the boundaries between “official” and “unofficial,” and lower courts will likely play a significant role in interpreting and applying that distinction on a case-by-case basis.

Legal scholars and civil-liberties advocates have expressed concern. The decision, they argue, potentially grants the presidency — and former presidents — a level of protection that can shield wrongdoing, undermine accountability, and risk creating a de facto “above-the-law” class.

In the immediate term, the ruling complicates any attempt to mount criminal investigations against former presidents based solely on actions taken while in office. For now, unless evidence emerges that relates to unofficial or personal misconduct, prosecution appears unlikely under the immunity framework.

Still, the uncertainty surrounding what qualifies as an “official act” leaves room for contention. As future cases arise, lower courts will need to grapple with the difficult judgment calls that the Supreme Court has deferred. Meanwhile, public debate continues over whether the decision strikes the right balance between preserving executive authority and ensuring accountability.

For now, the answer to the reporter’s question remains: yes — former presidents like Obama may have immunity under certain circumstances. But whether that immunity holds in a particular case depends heavily on the specifics — the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, when and how it occurred, and how courts interpret “official acts.”

If you like, I can also write a Vietnamese version of this article, or a version with more legal analysis of possible loopholes under the immunity ruling.