A recent news item reported :

... they are also concerned about his argument in a 2009 legal article that a sitting president should be immune to prosecution.

The OED states that the adjective 'immune' has three primary meanings :

  • free or clear (of or from)

  • exempt from

  • wholly protected from

but then the OED states another meaning :

  • having immunity to

I do not understand how the concept of 'to' arises.

'Immune' is to be exempt from, clear of, clear from, untouched by, totally protected from .......

How does the concept of 'to' arise ?

EDIT: Following a (sadly deleted ?) answer which also noted the usage of 'against' I am adding a link to the Ngram for 'immune to/immune from/immune against'. There seems to have been a difference between AmE and BrE in the early 20th century but nowadays there is agreement by both that 'to' is more common and 'against' is very rare.

I then added 'immunity to/immunity from/immunity against' and saw something interesting :

The wording 'immunity from' prevailed in the 19th century and then, I suppose, the concept of vaccination changed the way that immunity was regarded. The graph shows the changes.

  • The short answer is prepositions are weird and don't matter. What preposition did you expect to encounter? Sep 4, 2018 at 19:38
  • 3
    @AzorAhai My expectation was exclusively 'from'. User 070221's answer demonstrates that there is a definite conceptual difference in the use of 'to' and 'from' for specific usages.
    – Nigel J
    Sep 4, 2018 at 20:07
  • 1
    Interesting. I had never thought about it before! Thanks for asking the question. Sep 4, 2018 at 20:11
  • @PhilSweet, there is no need to ascribe motive where there is none. A grant of immunity is sometimes given to a criminal defendant in exchange for his testimony. That's a different type of immunity than referenced in the question. In the cited news story, immunity from prosecution is inherent in the presidential office, because it is a matter of law rather than something to be granted or withheld. See my discussion of sovereign immunity, in my answer to this question.
    – Theresa
    Sep 5, 2018 at 0:50

3 Answers 3


I note that your example is from BBC News, a British source, saying the source is a legal article but neither quoting that article nor giving its legal citation. That is one reason that I think "immune to prosecution" is not the most frequently used construction.

In my thirty-five years practicing law in the USA, I have read and heard only "immune from prosecution". It's as if there's a giant bulletproof window around the one "immune".

In the context of an American president being immune from prosecution, the doctrine of "sovereign immunity" is related. This is a a legal doctrine dating from European monarchs, "sovereigns". The president is not a sovereign, rather the nation is sovereign. Criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits against a sitting president would cripple his ability to work as the nation's chief executive. That is the policy reason for sovereign immunity.

"Immune to" may be more frequent in a medical context. I have also heard of parents who were "immune to" children's tantrums, in the sense of being able to ignore the tantrums.

As stated in one of the comments, prepositions can be flexible. Immune works with "to", "from", and "against", and all are used in the USA.


The usage of the prepositions to and/or from is still an open issue. The prepositions essentially introduce different concepts as suggested in the following article from Merriam-Webster.

The traditional advice given by usage commentators is that you become immune to a disease or a drug, but immune from something when the object is some kind of obligation or duty, such as taxation, or something that can happen to you, such as prosecution. (In Latin, immunis means "exempt from public service.")

Some commentators recommend determining the appropriate preposition based on the relationship between the affecting thing and the object being affected. As Bryan Garner explains in Modern American Usage, "What you’re immune from can’t touch you; what you’re immune to may touch you, but it has no effect."

So if you are immune from prosecution, the prosecutor cannot go after you; if you are immune to a suitor's charms, the suitor can keep wooing you, but it would be to no avail. A person immune from criticism cannot be criticized; a person immune to criticism can be criticized but doesn't let the criticism bother them.

Actual usage tends to be somewhat murkier, particularly when the affecting thing is expressed in abstract or figurative language:

  • Williams said Kansas is not immune to earthquakes. There are fault lines near Manhattan, and the eastern half of the state sits between two major mid-continental faults… — William Klusener, _The Morning Sun _(Pittsburg, Kansas), 9 Nov. 2011

  • Liberals are not immune from temptation and hubris even when they mouth correct sentiments. — National Review, 2 Sept. 2013

Since the very nature of the word implies a kind of separation or distancing—either from disease or trouble—it's understandable that from is sometimes preferred. Are there other options? Once in a while we run into the occasional immune against, but this is rare:

  • Third, the fortunate ones of us who do recover develop antibodies that leave us immune against a recurrence of the disease for a long time — Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel, 1997
  • While a well-researched answer, I think either "to" or "from" would work just fine in all of these examples. There are definitely situations where one seems to be preferred, but it doesn't really matter. Short answer: don't worry about it, and use either one.
    – user91988
    Sep 4, 2018 at 20:02
  • Nice answer, but this doesn't answer the question, which is why is to a viable option here? Sep 4, 2018 at 21:02

Here are some examples of adjectives that take "to" and "from" prepositions:
immune to/from

resistant to (not from)
impervious to (not from)
impermeable to (not from)
resilient to (not from)
vulnerable to (not from)
susceptible to (not from)

exempt(ed) from (not to)
protect(ed) from (not to)
shelter(ed) from (not to)
save(d) from (not to)
preserve(d) from(not to)
rescue(d) from(not to)
excuse(d) from(not to)
except(ed) from(not to)

I kind of do see a pattern between the two groups. The words on the top are adjectives, also with noun forms available. However the words on the bottom are all verbs, all have adjective forms made from their past participle. This isn't the case with the words in the top group.

I'm sure this isn't a great rule, it's just an observation of mine.

Also, as to why both "from" and "to" can be used with "immune", I looked up the word "immune" in the Middle English Dictionary, which supposedly includes word usage between 1100-1500, and I got this definition:

(a) Free; ~ fro, exempt from (payment of tithes);
(b) ~ of, free of (sin, deceit).

So it looks like even going back over 500 years the word "immune" was used with both preposition "to" and "from". The dictionary gives something like "free or exempted from the payment of tithes". As a second definition it says the preposition following is "of", as in "free of sin, deceit".

I'm not sure whether this fits in with my observation that "from" is used with adjectives resulting from something done (verbs). But if you compare the two definitions, being free from paying tithes I would imagine is exempting you (doing something to you), whereas being free of sin I would imagine doesn't involve performing an action, but is simply a description of a person (adjective).

  • Good, thorough list. Prosecution is the noun form of "to prosecute". To be free from prosecution (and from the fear of prosecution) fits well with "immune from prosecution".
    – Theresa
    Sep 5, 2018 at 0:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.