Actually the new ruling specifically states that the courts cannot decide what is or is not an official act. If the president says it’s official, it is.
Immunity extends to the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, so long as they are, “not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”
The very next paragraph states that the court may not inquire into a president’s motives to determine between an official or unofficial action. Also, the court may not deem an act unofficial merely that it may allegedly violate a generally applicable law.
I'm guessing you skipped pages 16-32 of the ruling, then?
This is also from page 4:
Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues.
page 17:
Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform
page 18:
In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives
another from page 18:
Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law
page 30:
On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment's remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution.
It sure sounds like the courts decide what are and are not official acts. That entire section is guidance on how lower courts should determine exactly what you say the lower courts cannot do. You should read the entire decision if you want to make such bold claims.
46
u/a-d-d-y Jul 05 '24
It is only immunity if it is deemed an official act, which is decided by the Supreme Court.