The decision was almost reasonable in a theoretical, academic sense divorced from the present circumstances.
If congress duly authorizes military action to defend America from an actual invasion, and a president commands troops to action in good faith accordingly, such a president shouldn't be prosecuted for murder.
Personally, I think such questions should be up to a jury, because some presidential actions could be in good faith and others might not be, etc. a wartime president might order a massacre or something for personal or other reasons not in good faith even while other actions in the war are in good faith. That's for a jury to decide, I think.
Instead, their decision means it's for the courts to decide as a matter of law if an action is official or not.
Moreover, there really isn't any language in the constitution to support "immunity".
Anyway, though, there's an argument for why their view might make sense in theory. But it ignores the reality that we have a dictator in the making looking for any leverage he can get and this hands him an excuse to break other law that was entirely predictable, and that's the big mistake.
It may be defensible in theory, but in practice it's a predictable disaster, setting up tyranny.
= new reply since forum marked as read
