Subject: Re: Twenty Weeks to Topple a Republic
They did say that. The majority opinion explicitly states that there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

So ‘no immunity for unofficial acts’ is synonymous with ‘no immunity from illegal acts’?

I don’t think so.

So, once again, why didn’t the SCOTUS just say there is no immunity for illegal acts instead there is immunity for official acts?

And who determines what an official act is?

Oh, the Supreme Court.

How convenient.