> The ruling says that if the President is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties then they shouldn't have to wonder if th

> The ruling says that if the President is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties then they shouldn't have to wonder if they'll later be prosecuted for it. The other big problem is how do you resolve a question of whether the president is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties? If there is a presumption of immunity and precluded from examining motive, it may be nearly impossible to establish the facts in cases where the president is acting improperly.