Legal analysts are warning that President Donald Trump may face serious legal obstacles if he attempts to pursue criminal action against former President Barack Obama — despite Trump’s recent accusations of treason — because of the Supreme Court’s landmark presidential immunity ruling.
In Trump v. United States, decided last year, the Supreme Court ruled that a sitting or former president is immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken as part of their “official duties.” The decision dramatically reshaped the boundaries of executive accountability and now appears poised to shield not only Trump, but past presidents as well.
A Ruling With Far-Reaching Consequences
The immunity ruling was initially framed as a victory for Trump, who argued that allowing criminal prosecutions over presidential decisions would paralyze the executive branch and invite endless political retaliation. The Court agreed, holding that criminal liability cannot attach to official acts performed while in office.
Now, legal experts say that same precedent may protect Barack Obama from any future prosecution — even if new evidence emerges related to actions taken during his presidency.
That concern surfaced after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused Obama and senior members of his administration of orchestrating what she described as a politically motivated intelligence operation designed to undermine Trump after his 2016 election victory.
Gabbard Alleges Intelligence Manipulation
Gabbard has alleged that Obama-era officials “manufactured and politicized intelligence” to create the foundation for the Trump-Russia investigation — a probe that dominated Trump’s first term and ultimately failed to establish collusion.
According to Gabbard, newly reviewed intelligence materials suggest that the assessment used to justify the investigation was not the product of neutral analysis, but a coordinated effort directed from the highest levels of government.
“The evidence that we have found and released directly points to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment,” Gabbard said.
She has announced plans to submit formal criminal referrals to both the Department of Justice and the FBI, requesting a review of the conduct of Obama-era officials involved in the intelligence process.
Legal Reality vs. Political Accountability
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, legal experts caution that the Supreme Court’s immunity framework creates a nearly insurmountable barrier to prosecution.
Under the Court’s ruling, actions taken by a president in the course of directing intelligence agencies, overseeing national security decisions, or authorizing investigations would almost certainly be considered “official acts.” As such, they would fall squarely within the scope of constitutional immunity.
That means even if wrongdoing were established, criminal charges against a former president would likely be barred.
Congress May Be the Only Avenue
During an appearance on Fox News, legal analyst Greg Jarrett discussed the implications of the ruling with host Sean Hannity, alongside Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Jarrett suggested that while prosecution may be difficult, congressional oversight and public exposure remain viable tools.
Jordan pointed to testimony given by former CIA Director John Brennan, arguing that Brennan may have misled Congress during questioning about the now-discredited Steele dossier.
“I went back and read some of that transcript,” Jordan said. “I think John Brennan misled Congress — and you’re not supposed to do that.”
However, Jordan acknowledged that statutes of limitations and procedural hurdles could complicate any legal consequences.
A Double-Edged Sword
Ironically, the immunity ruling Trump championed to protect the presidency from politically motivated prosecutions may now prevent accountability for the very actions Trump has condemned.
Supporters argue this outcome is an unavoidable consequence of preserving executive independence. Critics counter that it creates a system where presidents are effectively above the law once they leave office.
What remains clear is that the Supreme Court’s decision has permanently altered the legal landscape — not just for Trump, but for every former and future president.
As investigations continue and political tensions escalate, one thing is certain: the immunity ruling has turned what once seemed like potential criminal cases into political battles fought almost entirely outside the courtroom.