As of right now, based on the Fitzgerald case, Trump does have absolute immunity from civil liability with regards to official actions taken in his role as president.
>>>In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from
legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office.<<<
en.wikipedia.org
There was some speculation that the courts might rule that Trump's actions on January 6 were official acts taken in his role as president, and Fitzgerald civil immunity would be extended to criminal liability. As I see it, the considerations in Fitzgerald are significantly different. For one thing, if Fitzgerald would have gone the other way, every president could face thousands if not millions of civil actions by disgruntled citizens.
In contrast, there are very few government entities that can bring criminal charges and it requires sufficient evidence to trigger a grand jury indictment. And of course criminal immunity would create a situation in which the president could order the military to kill his political opponents and all members of congress (so they can't impeach him) and kill his entire cabinet so they can't invoke the 25th amendment.
As judge Chutkin said about Trump in a prior case: "Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/judge-who-said-presidents-arent-kings-to-handle-new-trump-case
At any rate, Trump is well on his way to having the most losing Supreme Court decisions with his name on them of any former president in history.