At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump has long argued for absolute immunity in his federal election interference case, but his lawyer struck a different tone Thursday during arguments at the Supreme Court.

With the justices appeared largely skeptical of the argument that the entire indictment against Trump should be dismissed, attorney D. John Sauer made some concessions.

Sauer appeared to agree with special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts" of the president.

Sauer's main argument was that the entire indictment is premised on official acts, which should be protected by immunity in part to ensure that presidents' hands are not tied over fear of prosecution after they leave office.

Sauer accepted that Trump can be prosecuted for private acts that were not tied to his official duties as president.

During oral arguments, the justices zeroed in on the public-private distinction, which may lead to a ruling that sends the case back to lower courts for further deliberations on that issue, potentially scuttling any chance that a trial could take place before the election in November.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and liberal Justice Elena Kagan both peppered Sauer with questions about whether specific allegations in the indictment constituted official acts.

Sauer said Trump's conduct in three of the five situations he was asked about involved private actions, meaning they could be prosecuted.

Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the