Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled Monday on Trump's immunity case, the Biden reelection campaign organized a group of surrogates on a press call to lambast the decision that makes the former president immune from federal prosecution for official actions he took while in office.

The group included Capitol police officer Harry Dunn, New York Rep. Dan Goldman and Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett. The group criticized the Republican-majority Supreme Court for giving the former president "untethered political power," or freedom to act as a "dictator."

"I do think that it was extremely scary," said principal deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks, who led the call. "So what happens if there's an election outcome [or] result that Trump doesn't like in a Senate race, or governor's race or House race?"

The campaign said that Biden would be out on the campaign trail to highlight the threat that Trump poses to democracy following this decision.

"The Supreme Court just handed Donald Trump three keys to absolute immunity as president of the United States and so we're going to continue to point out to voters," Fulks said. "When Trump says these things, now he will have the ability to do them if he is the president or reelected president of the United States, and we have to do everything in our power to stop."

Fulks diverted attention from a question about Biden's debate performance, saying the Supreme Court's decision was a "reality check" in the face of debate night.

"Now until November, we're going to continue taking this case directly to voters who are going to decide this election," he said.

-ABC News' Isabella Murray

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

In their dissents, both justices Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder -- including ordering the assassination of a political rival.

In their dissents, both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder -- including ordering the assassination of a political rival.

When the president "uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor said in her dissent. "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune."

ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw said on ABC News Live Monday that she agreed with the dissenting opinion that ordering the hypothetical assassination could be considered immune from criminal prosecution.

"In terms of the application of this immunity to very extreme scenarios like ordering an assassination, I'm not sure the majority successfully explains why this rule would not shield that kind of conduct if it's engaged in an official capacity, even if it's wildly wrong and dangerous and destructive," she said. "If that conduct is done in official capacity, I think the dissent is right on this opinion's own logic. It would be immune, and that is a genuinely chilling implication of this case."

The SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical was raised during oral arguments on the case in April.

Sotomayor raised it first while questioning Trump attorney John Sauer. She pointed back to an earlier exchange Sauer had in a lower court proceeding.

"I'm going to give you a chance to say ... if you stay by it: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him -- is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" she asked during oral arguments.

"It would depend on the hypothetical," Sauer answered. "We could see that could well be an official act."

-ABC News' Meredith Deliso and Alexandra Hutzler