I felt like I must have misread the ruling after seeing all of the articles and comments.
Former presidents also have a “presumption of immunity” for their official acts while in office — but, the court ruled, there is no immunity for “unofficial acts.”
So chutkin is going to decide what acts were official acts and which were unofficial.
But "presumption of immunity" is a weird fucking phrase too because it makes it seem like you can prove they aren't immune? Like presumption of innocence--you start there and work the other way. So presumably(pardon the pun) you can start there with this and work the other way still?
I'd need actual lawyers to make this make sense.
But either way it didn't seem as "carte Blanche presidents can do anything" to me when I read it.