In a significant development, former President Donald Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, struck a different tone during arguments at the Supreme Court, indicating that Trump could be prosecuted for private acts not tied to his official duties. The justices appeared largely skeptical of the argument for absolute immunity put forth by Trump's legal team, signaling a potential setback for the ex-president in his federal election interference case.

Sauer, in agreement with special counsel Jack Smith, acknowledged that certain allegations in the indictment did not involve "official acts" of the president. His main contention, however, focused on the premise that the entire indictment was based on official acts, which should be protected by immunity to preserve the freedom of presidents even after leaving office.

During the oral arguments, the justices honed in on the distinction between public and private actions, which could ultimately lead to the case being sent back to lower courts for further deliberation on this issue. Such a ruling could potentially delay the trial beyond the November election, a point that Sauer seemed intent on achieving.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and liberal Justice Elena Kagan questioned Sauer about specific allegations in the indictment and whether they constituted official acts. Sauer's responses indicated that Trump's conduct in some instances involved private actions that could be prosecuted.

Legal analysts noted that Sauer's apparent concessions underscored the fact that Trump may not enjoy immunity for the majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment. Matthew Seligman, a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, stated that the case would likely proceed to trial unless there was some external intervention, such as Trump ordering the Justice Department to drop the charges after winning the election.

While Sauer's modified stance may not have immediate electoral consequences, the potential further delay of a trial could be seen as a victory in itself for the former president. However, experts are closely watching if the Supreme Court ruling on the public-private distinction could significantly impact the course of the case.

The arguments brought up specific examples from the indictment, such as Trump's alleged involvement with attorney Rudy Giuliani, referred to as unindicted co-conspirator 1, and another private attorney, referred to as co-conspirator 2. These instances involve false claims of election fraud and the filing of a verification containing false allegations against the Georgia Governor. Moreover, mention was made of a scheme involving fake electors, where private actors, including attorneys and a political consultant, worked with Trump and a co-conspirator attorney to obstruct the certification proceeding.

The case also highlighted Trump's potential involvement in a meeting with the Department of Justice to discuss the appointment of an acting attorney general, which Sauer considered an official act. Additionally, Trump's communication with the American public and Congress regarding matters of federal concern, especially leading up to the Capitol attack on January 6, was deemed as official acts.

As the Supreme Court takes the arguments into consideration, the future of Trump's federal election interference case remains uncertain. The court's ruling on the public-private distinction will be pivotal in determining the path forward and whether Trump will face trial for the allegations outlined in the indictment.