No, the depravity wasn't that Trump filed and got heard an argument before the USSC that as President he has effective immunity from criminal statutes while in office, and to not uphold this means a future Administration can vindictively punish past acts.
The issue is that none of the "Justices" on either side of the alleged aisle asked the obvious and foundational question:
Why are we here in the first place when a full 20% of the US Economy rests on conduct that was criminalized over 100 years ago in 15 USC and which this Court has twice ruled unlawful 40 years ago yet not one indictment has been issued, and further over the last several Administrations, including both those of the Petitioner and Responding side, willfully and intentionally refused to bring millions of felony criminal charges under 8 USC §1324 relating to illegal immigration?
In the movies perhaps not but in the current world not only are Presidents routinely above the law without consequence (Biden giving the literal middle finger to the Supremes on College Debt) but executives routinely prosecute their political enemies for criminal offenses that their friends commit with impunity, and in many cases said friends are in fact found by both sides of the aisle to a degree that literal millions of said felonies are committed and deliberately ignored every single year and comprise one dollar in five, and likely one employee in five, in our economy.
So pardon me if I do not care about what has become a literal circus show including at the alleged "highest court in the land" which cannot be bothered to ask the seminal question that they of course know the answer to but which should color not only this case but any similar case until and unless the Executive actually honors the law they claim to uphold.
It would appear that, as I expected, the Supremes are looking to "split the baby" in this specific instance but doing that will not in any meaningful way resolve the issue. Were I on the Court I would be inclined to write an opinion (and attempt to solicit consensus) delineating that such "immunity" only applies to matters of jurisdiction beyond the United States, such as claims before the ICC and similar, and that if Presidents past, present or future have an issue with Statutes applying to them and being enforced evenly without fear, favor or political bias, they need to start with their own Departments of Justice and, when States are implicated, use the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment to compel compliance there as well.
After all that is allegedly the law of the land, and considering that the criminal and economic damage done by illegal immigration in this country today, never mind the one dollar in five which is almost entirely stolen through violations of 15 USC Chapter 1 I would absolutely decline to grant any President, irrespective of circumstance, any protection from said politically-driven harassment until and unless those acts of political harassment, financial harm, and even rape and murder are ended by actual enforcement of laws on the books for over 60 and 100 years, respective.
Until then I'd tell Trump and every other President past, present and future, to fuck off.