“Immunity says, even if you did it for personal gain, we won’t hold you responsible. How could that be?” asked Justice Sotomayor.

An attorney for Donald Trump on Thursday tried to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that his client could have murdered his political rivals with immunity, whether for official state purposes or just because he felt like it—and Justice Sonia Sotomayor was not having it.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump’s presidential immunity case, and discussion largely focused on determining if there is immunity for a president’s “official acts.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor cut right to the heart of the issue, by asking attorney John Sauer point blank whether a president should be allowed to assassinate his political rivals, as both he and Trump have previously argued.

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that would well be an official act,” Sauer replied.

“It could, and why? Because he’s doing it for personal reasons,” she said. “He’s not doing it like President Obama is alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist. He’s doing it for personal gain. And isn’t that the nature of the allegations here? That he’s not doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility, he’s doing it for personal gain.”

“I agree with that characterization of the indictment, and that confirms immunity, because the characterization is there is a series of acts that were done for—” Sauer said, doubling down before he was interrupted by the liberal Justice.

“No, because immunity says, even if you did it for personal gain, we won’t hold you responsible. How could that be?” asked Justice Sotomayor, undermining the former president’s claims that his immunity should shield him from prosecution across his ongoing legal battles.

Sauer previously served as the solicitor general of Missouri from 2016 to 2023, under Senators Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, both election deniers, although Hawley has since claimed that he was not one.

In December 2020, Sauer filed a brief asking the Court to overturn the results of the presidential election in several swing states over alleged mail-in voting fraud.

In 2023, Sauer left the Missouri Attorney General’s Office to serve as special assistant attorney general for the Louisiana Department of Justice. There, he helped them launch their lawsuit against members of the Biden Administration, to prevent officials from contacting social media platforms to discuss issues relating to misinformation and protected speech.

Sauer also served for five years as the Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri. In 2005, Sauer was a clerk for the deeply conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.