Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in Trump v. United States, the much-anticipated decision on presidential immunity, "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law."

The idea that the president is not above the law sounds great. A separate but co-equal branch of government standing up to the office of president and finding that the president is like the rest of us, constrained by the rule of law. Don't be fooled. That's not what this decision represents.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said, if the president is in office there are no limitations on what he or she can do. The president is above all checks and balances if he is acting within his constitutional authority.

Why a co-equal branch of government would want to bestow unlimited authority on another branch of government is inconceivable, but that is what this opinion appears to do. The High Court found "at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President's acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility."

The court makes a clear distinction between official and unofficial acts of a president. When former President Donald Trump's legal team initially brought up the claim of immunity seeking to dismiss the federal indictment accusing him of conspiring to undermine the 2020 election, there was a significant concession. According to The New York Times, the key Supreme Court precedent the motion relied on for claiming "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution did not address criminal prosecutions.

The Trump motion cited the 1982 precedent, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, at least 40 times over 52 pages. But that decision merely held that a former president is immune from lawsuits in civil cases — ones from private litigants seeking money — and then only if the suits concerned conduct "within the 'outer perimeter' of his official responsibility."

John F. Lauro, a lawyer for Trump, conceded that "no court has addressed whether such presidential immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for the president's official act."

That argument made its way to the Supreme Court, and citing Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court bought Trump's argument hook, line and sinker. The court ruled that Trump has absolute immunity with regard to his discussions with the Department of Justice about leveraging power to have states replace their legitimate electors and investigating sham allegations of election fraud.

The court found that the president is presumptively immune for allegedly "attempt[ing] to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding."

What's more, the court found that Trump's communication by tweet and public address on Jan. 6 are protected: "The president possesses 'extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf ... [the President's] communications are likely to fall comfortably with the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities."

The court has remanded the case to the federal district court to determine whether some conduct by Trump was official or unofficial; and whether the conduct by Trump toward the vice president would "pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."

The three dissenting justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — did not mince words when attacking the majority's ruling. Sotomayor, writing for the minority, contends the majority just made the president into "a king above the law."

According to The New York Times, Justice Sotomayor added that beyond its consequences for the bid to prosecute Trump for his attempt to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election, it would have "stark" long-term consequences for the future of American democracy.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a lame-duck president can spend his time between Election Day and Inauguration Day trying to subvert the election. He can do so with absolute immunity — no one can hold him accountable for lying, threatening, intimidating, cajoling or committing crimes to thwart the will of the people.

Sotomayor wrote, "The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book "The Executioner's Toll, 2010" was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

Photo credit: Tingey Injury Law Firm at Unsplash