This ruling sounds good on its face, but it's mixed at best and somewhat bad in the broad view.

1. It doesn't define what is or isn't an official duty or act. It gives some examples and then says it's up to the lower courts to decide what is or isn't on a case by case basis. It specifically said some of the current allegations are official acts that can't be prosecuted and said some of the others are probably not official acts but the lower courts will have to rule on them. I'm sure that will be a speedy process that gets done before the election!

2. It also says it is the government's burden to prove an act isn't official, which will slow everything down and bring the cases back to SCOTUS again on a case by case basis. This also opens the possibility of political assassinations as being argued as official acts.

3. It mentions Presidents having limited immunity from having to make documents available. It does say it isn't absolute, but it definitely leaves the door open to block current court cases from using many documents as evidence and also leaves the door open to claim immunity for the classified docs case. Evidence fights at the current criminal cases are about to be much harder for the prosecution to win. Now, it does say that former Presidents no longer have this immunity but isn't clear whether that is for all docs or only docs for after they are former Presidents.

4. Maybe the worst is that it rules INTENT cannot be questioned. That is a core concept of criminal cases: intent matters! They are holding that it would bog down a President to be constantly asked about his/her intent when doing official acts, so therefor courts cannot question it. This REALLY opens the possibility of political assassinations, since intent behind the act cannot be questioned (e.g. it presupposes the person who was assassinated was committing treason or planning a terrorist attack and therefor the Presidential act was official). It does not say that former Presidents no longer have the Intent immunity, so this might be rough to clear in courts.

5. It specifically ruled that it is 100% OK to fire a person if they don't do the illegal thing the President asks them to do, as long as that person's job is something the President can hire/fire. It also ruled that if the illegal thing the President asks them to do falls within their job duties, then the President is immune from prosecution for asking for that illegal thing.