> The court opinion literally says pressuring the vice president to try to not certify the election was an official act related to talking about the limits of his roles and responsibilities.

This isn't how Supreme Court cases usually work. Most of the time, as in this case, they clarify some things and send it back to the lower courts.

The Court here ruled that the President is entitled to immunity for official acts and sent the case back to the lower court to determine if Trump was acting in his official capacity as President or in his capacity as a political candidate.

>This isn't how Supreme Court cases usually work. Most of the time, as in this case, they clarify some things and send it back to the lower courts.

I'm actually a member of the Supreme Court bar, and have been involved in a number of supreme court cases, so i'm fairly aware of how Supreme Court cases work :)

They did what I said:

"Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct"

No it doesn't. The conclusion III(B)(2) of the opinion:

> It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

????

Yes it does - the part you cite was written because they found it an official act with a presumption of immunity that the government has some chance to rebut. If it had been an unofficial act, there would be no immunity at all.

Here:

"Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct"