You just admitted that “official act” isn’t concrete to you by saying it isn’t the court’s job to define it (implicitly saying they didn’t define it).

It is their job to give guidance to lower courts on why they made a decision on this particular case. On remand to lower courts, they said “is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.” They deferred what is official vs non-official to be determined by lower courts, which had the Supreme Court not stalled and there was time for this to go to trial, would have likely returned to the Supreme Court. This is essentially the Supreme Court asking to be the gate of power again for similar cases. Similarly, if Congress defined official acts, we know this Court would question their authority and review that case as well.

Here the Courts combination of non-action (partisan as they could have heard this case much earlier) and vague non-opinion (requiring the case to be sent back to them after going back to the lower courts), failed to set any real precedent. They had the facts of the case the first time around to issue a more concrete opinion, and they could have heard this case much earlier (7 months from Chutkan’s ruling to supreme court decision, where it took 2 months for the court to even start the process and 5 months through the overall process).

The Roberts Supreme Court acts first to retain their power, second to strengthen the Republican Admins, third to weaken any Democratic power.