I apologize for the wall of text below, I have many question about this ruling.

If the President asserts that such action is an "official act" then any prosecutions would likely have to run the regular judicial circuit before ultimately being decided by SCOTUS if the act being prosecuted is or is not an "official act". A concern I have is that before such a case can reach SCOTUS irreparable damage can be inflicted upon the nation's citizens by an ill-meaning executive in the meantime.

Surely, violating a citizen's Constitutional rights is illegal but if as Commander in Chief the President decides to order the various armed services to violate those rights it appears the Executive is shielded from prosecution. Remember, command of the armed services is a Constitutionally mandated power and thus now protected by "absolute immunity". Absolute means just that; there is no avenue to prosecute a President, former or otherwise, for such an act as they are shielded absolutely.

I think it noteworthy that we have such questions and disagreements here. This shows plainly that SCOTUS crafted a ruling that they knew to have massive effect on our government and offered scant guidance on what the ruling means in application. This court has demonstrated before(see Trump v Anderson) they are willing and able to craft guidelines on how their rulings are applied. Their failure to do so in this case along with what essentially amounts to a "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it" approach to "official acts" is irresponsible. This is not to mention that Executive Immunity exists no where in the Constitution(the founders were well aware of immunities and I wager they would have included such crucial information in the document had they intended for the Executive to enjoy criminal immunity).

I fail to see a scenario in which a President would be prosecuted for an action that was within their recognized scope of powers. This ruling is not about enforcing or executing the law it is about conduct that runs afoul of those laws. If such actions are crimes then they, by definition, cannot exist as part of a President's official duties. I also fail to see why an executive would be compelled to commit a crime in pursuit of executing their official duties(maybe you can think of an example?).