Several Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill spoke out about the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity.

Many GOP members of Congress lauded the decision and said it was a victory for former President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, many Democrats on the Hill said it sets a dangerous precedent.

Speaker Mike Johnson said the decision marks "another defeat for President [Joe] Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith."

"As President Trump has repeatedly said, the American people, not President Biden’s bureaucrats, will decide the November 5th election," Johnson said in a statement.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement that the immunity SCOTUS decision “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation.”

“House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a series of statements on X that the ruling was a "disgraceful decision by the MAGA SCOTUS."

"The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president," he said.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said on a post on X that the ruling "upholds the rule of law in our country and rebukes Democrats’ blatant attempts to weaponize our legal system against Donald Trump."

"Time and time again, Americans have watched the Biden administration do everything in its power to take down President Trump, but this partisan attack will not stand in America," she said.

Trump spoke about the ruling in another post on his social media platform arguing that the Supreme Court's decision "should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me."

The former president specifically cited his Manhattan hush-money case, in which Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. He is slated to be sentenced this month in the hush-money case.

Trump also cited the New York attorney general civil case against his businesses' fraudulent practices and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.

Although Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the majority on the presidential immunity case, she dissented on a section of the ruling that limits what evidence can be used against a president at trial.

Barrett brought up a hypothetical situation of a bribery case against a president, arguing while there are clear federal laws that prohibit the commander-in-chief from accepting bribes, excluding evidence would "hamstring the prosecution."

"To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability," she wrote in her concurring opinion.

"I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury ... But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis," Barrett added.

-ABC News' Katherine Faulders

Former President Donald Trump's campaign sent out an email fundraising off the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.

"BREAKING FROM TRUMP: Supreme Court gives TOTAL IMMUNITY for official acts!" Trump campaign's fundraising email said.

"Official acts cannot be illegally prosecuted - BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRACY &; OUR CONSTITUTION!" the fundraising email continues, calling the case a "witch hunt" and saying it "should've never happened."

-ABC News' Soorin Kim

When the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents, it was a shock for many veteran court observers.

"It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court," said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt. "I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable."

One point that stood out to Gerhardt was when Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.

"The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I've ever heard at the Supreme Court," he said.

Read more about reaction to the April arguments here.