The claim

““The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that presidents have ‘absolute immunity’ for crimes committed while in office.””

The Supreme Court recognized broad immunity for a president’s official acts, but it did not grant “absolute immunity” for all crimes and left key questions for lower courts to apply.

The Court held that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within the president’s “core constitutional powers” and presumptive immunity for other “official acts,” while there is no immunity for purely private conduct. The ruling did not say a president is immune for any and all crimes; instead it requires courts to classify alleged conduct as official vs. unofficial and apply the framework accordingly. Because many viral posts omit the decision’s distinctions and the role of lower courts in determining what counts as an official act in specific cases, the “absolute immunity” framing is inaccurate. The practical effect can be significant, but it is not blanket immunity for everything done while in office.