In a thought-provoking dissent, two Supreme Court justices have raised the controversial question of whether a commander in chief could order the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and still be immune from criminal prosecution. The discussion arose during the high court's ruling on former President Donald Trump's immunity case.

The Supreme Court's ruling on Monday established that former presidents are entitled to certain protections for their "official" acts. However, it rejected Trump's claim of "absolute" immunity from criminal prosecution in his federal election subversion case, stating that there is no immunity for "unofficial" acts.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the 6-3 majority opinion, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. Both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the issue of whether a president could be immune from criminal prosecution for ordering the assassination of a political rival.

Sotomayor expressed concern that the new official-acts immunity could be abused by any president who places their own interests above those of the nation. She wrote in her dissent, "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune."

Jackson added that under the majority's new accountability model, a hypothetical president who admits to ordering such assassinations could potentially receive immunity. She warned of a system where legal liability would depend on the acts being committed in an official capacity.

Chief Justice Roberts dismissed the dissenting opinions as dwelling on "extreme hypotheticals" and overlooking the preservation of the Constitution's separated powers. He argued that without immunity, prosecutions of former presidents for various policy-related decisions could become routine, leading to a weakened presidency and government.

The discussions surrounding the hypothetical scenario emerged during oral arguments in April, with Sotomayor questioning whether a president ordering the military to assassinate a political rival would fall within their official acts. Trump's attorney, John Sauer, responded that it would depend on the specific circumstances, suggesting it could be an official act.

Justice Samuel Alito also referred to the hypothetical use of the military, raising doubts about the plausibility of such actions being legal.

Legal experts have weighed in on the dissenting opinion, noting that if the conduct of ordering an assassination were considered an official act, it could potentially have chilling implications and grant immunity from criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court's ruling has reignited debates concerning the limits of presidential immunity and the need to strike a balance between protecting executive authority and ensuring accountability for potential criminal actions. As the discussion remains ongoing, the practical implications of this decision and its influence on future cases involving presidential immunity will be closely watched.