Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces.

The ruling makes it very clear that core constitutional powers have conclusive and preclusive (absolute) immunity.

Other official acts have presumptive immunity.

In all cases, the motive is above question. If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her. He doesn't even need to claim that she's a spy. It can never be questioned in court. He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.

In all cases, the official acts are explicitly not admissible as evidence. Using the example above, the District of Columbia can try to prosecute for murder, but is unable to introduce the fact of the order as evidence. If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.

You’re a student of history, thus I think you understand how “commander in chief of the armed forces” is a constitutional duty without needing further explanation of why.

I think you intended to communicate the Supreme Court would balk at it happening.

Yes.

Much like Kavanaugh balking at ethnicity-based stops after allowing language + skin color based stops. By then, it’s too late.

> Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that.

Just to be clear: you are disagreeing with a dissenting Supreme Court justice on how much the law protects the president. Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?

The coup question specifically came up in oral arguments. Trump's attorney said he would have immunity. The majority opinion more or less says it's up to congress to impeach.

So yes.