No, it's not. Because contradictions exist (is it official when it's unconstitutional? Is it official because it's mentioned in the constitution?) and are not yet resolved.
Anything laid out as a Presidential power in the Constitution is definitely an "official act". What is left for definition is everything else, from my understanding.
IANAL, but those seem like constitutional acts, and have absolute immunity, rather than simply presumptive immunity.
From the article:
> “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
There aren't just 2 types of acts. There are 3: constitutional, official, and unofficial.
> At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity.
Article 2, which talks about the president's powers, is vague and has not been stress tested to the same extent it's likely to now be (it seems like there will be a lot of debate around minutiae for years, just based off the trump presidency and charges brought).
As such, the phrase "exercise of his core constitutional power" is significantly less straightforward than it might seem at first glance.
If you read through the ruling, a lot more questions arise than answers. And Sotomayor's dissent only highlights how they don't know themselves. And it's not as though it was clear before this ruling. It was unclear, and this ruling says very little in practice.
