In a historic hearing that lasted more than two hours, the nine justices — six conservative and three more liberal — peppered Trump’s lawyer John Sauer and Solicitor General Michael Dreeben with questions as they consider whether to grant Trump, a candidate for president again in November, immunity from the lawsuit. The high court is being asked to decide whether Trump has absolute immunity because he was president and, if so, throw out a lawsuit against him pending in federal court in Washington alleging he interfered in the election and incited the Capitol riot. Most of the justices seemed skeptical of Trump’s claim, suggesting that only a president’s official actions are covered by immunity, not those that are personal in nature. But some of the conservative justices also criticized the way the lower courts have handled the case and suggested they might send it back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where Washington is located, to determine whether Trump’s actions were public or private. The Capitol riot lawsuit, which had been set to begin March 4, has been put on hold because of Trump’s immunity claim. Trump has an interest in dragging out the litigation because if he returns to the White House, he could order the Justice Department to drop the federal charges against him. It’s not clear when the Supreme Court will rule, but it typically issues decisions by June, before it breaks for the summer. Although it’s not in the Constitution or any law, sitting U.S. presidents have historically enjoyed immunity from lawsuits related to their official duties to avoid disrupting the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches. Pressed by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump appointed to the court, the former president’s lawyer conceded that some of what Trump did after the 2020 election was “private” in nature and probably not covered by immunity. But conservative Justice Samuel Alito pressed the solicitor general with the idea that leaving former presidents vulnerable to lawsuits would “destabilize” democracy because it would open the door to new presidents jailing their predecessors for revenge. The court’s liberal justices appeared more resistant to the idea that Trump should get absolute immunity. See Also: Arizona indicts 18 people for interfering in 2020 presidential election (Portuguese version)