There would need to be some legal "vehicle" similar to Trump's case, and not necessarily the most extreme version as you contemplate (although that could trigger the Court to rethink their path here...). But there would likely need to be a new ideological group on the Court to even entertain it because the current group is not granting cert again for a similar case.

With that said, I could see a case requiring greater clarification similar to what Planned Parenthood v. Casey did after Roe, which clarified the "undue burden" standard and expounded on the principles originally set by Roe. I find it hard to imagine District Court judges will have an easy time deciding what is "official" v. "unofficial" - these terms are undefined, nebulous, and rife for wildly different interpretations depending on the judge/court.

A constitutional amendment could certainly overturn the decision, but the odds of that happening with the levels of polarization in Congress are next to nothing.

So the most likely paths are: (1) a similar case involving presidential criminal immunity that expounds on the Trump case and clarifies official v. unofficial better; or (2) new ideological makeup of the Court either through Court-packing (which has its own issues) or the natural progression of judges (although I think they should have term/age limits!).

Takeaway - this decision will be with us for a LONG time.