Claim: The Supreme Court ruling about presidential immunity meaningfully expanded the powers of the president, allowing for blatant abuse.

The article argues against the claim of expanded presidential powers by referencing key case law and legal principles:

1. It cites Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where Justice Jackson established a three-tier framework for executive authority, which the Supreme Court adapted in this ruling.

2. The decision grants absolute immunity only for actions within the president's "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority," not for all actions.

3. The ruling allows for prosecution in many cases, especially for unofficial or private acts, and permits evidence to be presented in cases like bribery.

4. The author references Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 65 to emphasize that presidents remain subject to criminal justice after leaving office.

5. The article criticizes media and political figures for exaggerating the ruling's implications, arguing that their claims of unlimited presidential power are unfounded.

Immunity does not cover unofficial acts, but the distinction between official and unofficial acts could lead to complex legal disputes and further complications in prosecuting any alleged misconduct, as it may enable future presidents to evade accountability for actions that could be interpreted as within their official capacity.
The potential for abuse hinges on how future cases interpret the scope of "official acts" and the balance between executive immunity and the rule of law.

This article argues that the Supreme Court ruling significantly expanded presidential immunity:

1. It cites Federalist Papers 69 and 77, where Alexander Hamilton emphasized that presidents should be subject to prosecution, contradicting the Court's broad interpretation of immunity.

2. The author contrasts this ruling with Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), which only granted civil immunity and acknowledged that criminal immunity would raise different issues.

3. The article outlines how the Court expanded immunity by granting absolute protection for core executive actions, setting a high bar for prosecuting less-than-core actions, and limiting inquiry into presidential motives.

4. It argues that the Court's guidance on distinguishing official from unofficial conduct is overly broad, potentially classifying most presidential actions as official.

5. The author concludes that these combined factors create a level of presidential immunity not intended by the Framers and detrimental to public interest.

Page 9, Trump's lawyer claims that a political assassination "could well be an official act" which would enjoy immunity from prosecution.

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin says the Supreme Court ruling could "knock out" former President Trump's hush money verdict where he was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election.

In fact, Trump's legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the hush money case because of the new Supreme Court ruling."They argued that New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case against Trump, "violated the Presidential immunity doctrine and the Supremacy Clause by relying on evidence relating to President Trump's official acts in 2017 and 2018 to unfairly prejudice" the former president."

If the Supreme Court ruling helps Trump to get out of a case like that which relates to actions from before he was even President, then it does seem like the Presidential immunity granted by the Supreme Court Ruling is very broad and eslastic enough to be abused.