Gorsuch explains logic behind Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling: 'You gave us a very hard question'

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch explained the court's logic behind the pivotal ruling in the presidential immunity case against former President Trump in an interview that aired on Fox News Monday.

Gorsuch was asked by "America Reports" co-anchor Sandra Smith how the high court approached the unprecedented nature of the case after the ruling was published last month declaring that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

WHAT TRUMP TOLD FOX NEWS ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT RULING

"You gave us a very hard question," Gorsuch said. "It’s the first time in American history that one presidential administration was seeking to bring criminal charges against a predecessor. We had to go back and look at what sources were available to us."

The Trump-appointed justice said the court based its 6-3 decision on legal precedent established in the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which focused on presidential immunity from civil liability for actions taken while in office.

"There are some things we can agree on. You can impeach a president if he does something unlawful. You can enjoin or stop the conduct of his officials. You can go to court and get an injunction. Those are two things we can all agree on," he said.

JUSTICE GORSUCH HAS BRIEF WARNING ABOUT BIDEN'S SCOTUS PROPOSALS: TOO MANY LAWS CAN POSE A ‘DANGER’

"We also agree that no man is above the law in his private conduct," Gorsuch continued. "Even a president can be prosecuted for speeding. His private conduct, he is like everyone else."

Gorsuch said the Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that civil cases cannot be brought against a president, "presumptively, in his official capacity, after