As I understand it, if a president commits an illegal official act, he or she is immune from prosecution for it, or at least enjoys the presumption of immunity. However, just because the president may not be prosecutable for the act, it is still illegal. It seems to me that several things might follow from that fact.
First, refusing direct orders can be justified if the order is illegal. So, even though the president couldn’t be prosecuted for sending SEAL Team 6 after Nancy Pelosi, the Team could refuse to execute that order on the grounds that it is palpably illegal. In fact, arguably the members of the Team could be prosecuted for murder if they carried out the order, since it is so obviously illegal.
Second, in an illegal conspiracy involving a rogue president, the conspiracy is still illegal and the conspirators can still be prosecuted, except the president.
Third, if a rogue president issues an illegal executive order, he or she won’t be prosecuted for it, but since it would be illegal, the courts could still block it and overturn it
I’m sure there are many other examples.
The president is an executive, and as such, presidential power is exhibited through the president commanding Executive Branch employees to do things. Both civil servants and members of the armed services are expected to have at least some competence in understanding that officials can issue illegal orders that they are not supposed to obey. Perhaps the “little guys” could still reduce the harm caused by this decision.
My question: is the above true, or does this decision make any official order given by the president legal and/or completely immunize every person involved in implementing it?