from an excellent analysis by @AshaRangappa https://asharangappa.substack.com/p/the-bloodless-coup-has-startedwith
Text: The worst part of this case is that it becomes obvious that there was a moderate position that the justices could have taken that would have achieved the majority's purported goals. The Court could have simply said that any official act - even one in the outer perimeter of the president's duties - has presumptive immunity. That presumption can be rebutted if the government shows that the action was taken with a corrupt motive or for personal gain. That would have discouraged politically motivated prosecutions, reinforced the rule of law, and helped protect the executive branch. It also would have preserved the difference between lawful and unlawful acts.