Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court’s 6-3 majority:

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

An absolutely stunning—yet completely expected—ruling from the conservative majority of the Supreme Court expands the scope of a president’s powers, and positions the Court itself as the arbiter of what is deemed an “official act” and therefore “legal”.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the minority opinion:

Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a separate dissent:

Ultimately, the majority’s model simply sets the criminal law to one side when it comes to crimes allegedly committed by the President. Before accountability can be sought or rendered, the Judiciary serves as a newfound special gatekeeper, charged not merely with interpreting the law but with policing whether it applies to the President at all.

Justice Sotomayor, concluding her dissent:

Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

Read the entire opinion. The dissents are both blistering and illuminating.