Your analysis is wrong but I'm proud of you for writing original content and not simply re-posting something that some idiot posted on X. Your post merits a thoughtful response.
The Court of Appeals ruled, in essence, that former president Trump is now citizen Trump and, as such, does not enjoy immunity from prosecution. "Any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution," the court held.
The Supreme Court disagrees with that sweeping approach. We can be sure of that because: a) they wouldn't have taken it up if they agreed; and b) the questions from some of the justices at oral argument reflect that they're looking at this with a sharper focus.
The standard isn't, as you've suggested, what's "trivial" and what isn't. The Supreme Court's focus will be on private conduct versus official acts. Trump's counsel conceded at oral argument that some of his post-election conduct targeting the election results was private (e.g. asking Rudy to spread false election fraud claims) so there's little doubt this prosecution - - in whole or in part - - will move forward.
The Court will do one of two things in the decision that's handed down later this week or next. They'll either decide for themselves what actions are private and what are official, with the latter affording immunity, or they'll set a standard for immunity and instruct the trial court to make the determination as to whether relevant conduct was official or private. If the Court goes with that second option, the case would be remanded to the trial court for a determination as to which actions were private and, accordingly, can be prosecuted.
