During a recent court session, Justice Neil Gorsuch raised an important question regarding the civil immunity of former President Trump. He referred to a specific appeals court decision known as Blassingame, which addressed the issue of holding a former president accountable for certain actions in court.
In the Blassingame decision, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that campaign activities should be distinguished from presidential duties in civil lawsuits. This decision is particularly relevant to a case where individuals are suing Trump for allegedly contributing to the harm they experienced during the events of January 6, 2021.
Interestingly, Trump's legal team did not seek further challenges by appealing the Blassingame decision to the Supreme Court. As a result, the lawsuits related to the January 6 incident have been remanded back to the trial court for additional proceedings. The primary focus of these proceedings is to determine whether Trump's actions surrounding January 6 should be classified as campaign activities or official presidential responsibilities.
Justice Gorsuch highlighted that the DC appeals court had established a test to differentiate between private conduct, which is subject to legal scrutiny, and official acts performed by a president. This test aims to ensure that no individual, including a former president, is above the law.
Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, acknowledged the significance of the test formulated by the appeals court. He described it as a compelling framework that could serve as a valuable reference point for the ongoing legal proceedings.
