"From military coups to the sale of nuclear secrets, the Supreme Court grapples with the ramifications of potentially granting immunity to Trump."

Can a President order the assassination of a political rival and evade criminal prosecution? What about selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary or orchestrating a coup?

During oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Thursday, the Justices grappled with hypothetical scenarios, contemplating the practical consequences of potentially granting former President Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution in special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case against him.

"This case carries significant implications for the presidency and the future of our nation," remarked Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

In the case of Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court Justices expressed apprehensions about the far-reaching consequences for future Presidents, depending on their rulings in this landmark presidential power case. Throughout nearly three hours of arguments, they frequently sidestepped discussions concerning the specific allegations against Trump.

"We are establishing a rule with enduring significance," remarked Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Many of the Justices appeared skeptical of the argument put forth by Trump's lawyers that a former President enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts tied to the presidency. They indicated that such a stance could contravene the fundamental legal principle that no individual is exempt from the law and might transform the Oval Office into what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "the seat of criminal activity." Jackson contended, in her line of questioning, that if the Supreme Court were to grant Presidents immunity from criminal prosecution, they would lack the incentive to adhere to the laws they are sworn to uphold. She emphasized the potential consequences, stating, "I believe we would encounter a significant problem if... someone holding such immense power, as the most influential figure in the world with vast authority, could assume office with the knowledge that they would face no repercussions for criminal actions."

Justice Elena Kagan presented hypothetical situations wherein a President commanded the military to orchestrate a coup or sold nuclear secrets to a hostile foreign power. Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, contended that the President could not be criminally charged for these actions unless impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate beforehand. "That certainly sounds troubling, doesn't it?" responded Kagan.

However, Justices also expressed concerns about the practical ramifications of the government's argument that a President lacks immunity from such criminal liability. Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that a President occupies a uniquely precarious position, given the weighty decisions they must make and the vast extent of power they wield. Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both raised concerns about the possibility of overzealous prosecutors targeting former Presidents after they leave office. "I'm not worried about this case, but I am concerned about potential future misuse of the criminal law to target political adversaries based on allegations regarding their motives," Gorsuch remarked. He presented a hypothetical scenario wherein a President organized a peaceful civil rights demonstration outside the Capitol, inadvertently causing a delay in legislative proceedings, and could potentially face criminal charges for that action. The Justices and Sauer also deliberated on whether the threat of criminal prosecution might hinder a President's decision-making process or ability to govern.

Central to Trump's argument before the Supreme Court was the assertion that his post-2020 election actions constituted official conduct deserving of protection, rather than private actions, which all parties concede do not warrant criminal immunity.

Should the Supreme Court determine that presidential immunity exists to some extent, the subsequent question arises: where should the boundary be delineated between official and private actions, and under which category would Trump's actions in the Smith case be classified?

In response to Justice Amy Coney Barrett's inquiries, expressing caution regarding granting absolute immunity, Sauer acknowledged that certain allegations against Trump in the indictment constitute "private" acts. Michael Dreeben, representing the government, stated that even if the Supreme Court were to recognize some level of presidential immunity, Smith's case could proceed against Trump for charges that pertain to "private" actions, such as his alleged participation in the fake electors scheme.

The outcome of the high court's decision, and the expediency with which it is reached, will play a significant role in determining whether Trump will stand trial in his Washington, D.C. case before the November election.

Chief Justice John Roberts posed a series of questions indicating his skepticism of the appeals court decision earlier this year, which concluded that Trump lacked immunity. He suggested the possibility of remanding the case to the appeals court to determine whether certain actions by Trump are immune from prosecution, potentially leading to further trial delays. "Why shouldn't we refer it back to the court of appeals?" Roberts asked Dreeben. "My concern is that, as you're aware, the court of appeals did not engage in a focused examination of the specific acts or documents under consideration."

The Justices have faced criticism for the delayed consideration of Trump's appeal, waiting until the final day of the term for oral arguments. Some legal experts perceive this delay as advantageous for Trump, possibly jeopardizing the likelihood of a trial before the upcoming election.

"The fact that the Court has now accepted this case makes it highly improbable that the former President will stand trial for his actions on January 6 before the November 2024 election," explains J. Michael Luttig, former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge and assistant attorney general under George H.W. Bush. "While the Court is capable of expediting cases when necessary, it appears unlikely in this instance. The Court has essentially indicated and assured us that such expeditious handling will not occur."

The electoral case in Washington is among the four felony cases Trump confronts as he contests President Joe Biden for re-election. The Supreme Court's decision will likely extend to Trump's other federal cases in Florida and Georgia, where he also confronts the possibility of criminal prosecution should the Justices reject his immunity claim. However, it will not impact his hush-money case in New York, which does not pertain to official actions taken by Trump during his presidency.

The immunity case has intensified the scrutiny on the Supreme Court, which holds a 6-3 conservative majority, including three Justices appointed by Trump. Only last month, the court provided Trump with a pre-election advantage by ruling that Colorado could not remove him from the ballot.

On Thursday morning, Trump utilized social media to reiterate points from his court brief, asserting that the denial of presidential immunity would expose him to "extortion" from political adversaries. "If a President lacks IMMUNITY, he/she will become nothing more than a 'Ceremonial' President, seldom possessing the fortitude to take necessary actions for our Country," Trump stated.

Trump's legal team frequently references a 1982 Supreme Court decision, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which established absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for Presidents. However, a federal appeals court had previously dismissed Trump's immunity argument, contending that as a private citizen, he does not enjoy the same protection from criminal prosecution as he does during his presidency.

Initially, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had scheduled Trump's trial in the Smith case to commence on March 4. However, Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court led to a postponement of the proceedings, allowing his New York hush-money case to become the first to go to trial.

The federal indictment from Washington, D.C., accuses Trump of four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding, and two additional charges linked to his endeavors to overturn the 2020 election results, which culminated in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Prosecutors claim that Trump was involved in a scheme to submit counterfeit election certificates to Congress, with the intention of nullifying Biden's victory. Trump has entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.