U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a rare public statement, took the time to explain the reasoning behind the court's recent presidential immunity ruling. 

Gorsuch did so during a recent interview with Fox News's Sandra Smith.

Background

As the reader likely knows, Trump has been facing multiple criminal prosecutions from Democrat prosecutors. As a defense, Trump has claimed that he is protected from prosecution by the doctrine of presidential immunity.

After lower court judges disagreed, the matter made it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, the justices ruled in Trump's favor, at least partially.

What the justices ruled is that U.S. presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts undertaken during their presidency. The justices, however, left open the question of what constitutes an official or an unofficial act.

This was not that surprising of a decision from a legal standpoint. But, you wouldn't know this based on the media's coverage of the case.

Instead, mainstream media outlets have claimed that this ruling is a conservative, pro-Trump ruling that was made by a conservative, pro-Trump Supreme Court. This has led the Democrats to, once again, push for Supreme Court reforms.

"A very hard question"

During the interview, Gorsuch explained the reasoning behind the court's decision, and, contrary to what the media has claimed, politics did not play a role.

Gorsuch began, "You gave us a very hard question. 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."

Gorsuch went on to explain why it is "a very hard question," saying:

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

Solving the difficulty with an analogy

Gorsuch said that the way the justices handled the difficult question was by looking at the precedent regarding presidential immunity for civil liability. Presidents do have such immunity for official acts.

Gorsuch explained why, saying:

Because that would chill him from exercising the powers and duties of a president while he is president. He would be overwhelmed. His political enemies would simply bring suits against him forever more. The court held that about 50 years ago.

Accordingly, Gorsuch said that, in the Trump case, "All the court did in this case was simply apply that same precedent and idea to the criminal context."

This is certainly a different picture from the one that has been painted by the mainstream media.