The majority's description of how immunity will work, at least for the "core" constitutional functions, operates pretty much like the current immunity that Congresscritters have under the Speech and Debate Clause.

In an attempt by a lay person to go all "originalist text", didn't the founders have the opportunity to put similar language into the constitution for the president? That they didn't seems to indicate they didn't want such a similar clause for the president. So why should a court create a similar standard for the president? Sounds like legislating from the bench to me. It would be much more useful on a practical level to say there is no blanket immunity for a president, then send it back to the district to continue on. That would have been an obvious ruling to issue months ago. That seems like a more literal interpretation of the law. If a president or former president wants to carve out an exception similar to the speech and debate clause, let him argue that clause, or a similar rule, should apply to him. Instead, Trump argued that he should be able to send the military after a political enemy - an ability that is so ridiculous as to be laughable.

What they have done is virtually guarantee that another case will need to come before them to actually start defining the edges of their newly created circles of duties. While we have managed to handle member of congress under the speech and debate clause, I suspect there have been a couple of cases over the past 200+ years that have helped define the edges of that clause. Now we'll have to go through that process again for the president. Certainly any prior cases for members of congress will be instructional, but they won't be the actual law until they get tested by the courts.

Just decide the case before you, not every case that might ever come up.

--Peter