The Supreme Court is considering a significant constitutional dispute regarding President Trump's claim to immunity.

The Supreme Court carefully considered a new legal territory on Thursday: whether former presidents have complete immunity from criminal prosecution in the context of the special counsel's investigation into election interference.

The justices in a special courtroom session lasting over two and a half hours appeared to be searching for a compromise that would allow for some of Trump's broad claims to be dismissed while still allowing future presidents to be exempt from clearly official executive functions, such as their role as commander in chief.

The question the justices are grappling with is whether a former president is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for actions committed while in office.

The nine-member bench experienced a partisan divide early on, with arguments over whether and when executive officials' duties versus private conduct in office could be subject to prosecution.

Both liberal and conservative justices focused on the broader implications for future presidents.

"If the possibility of criminal liability is eliminated, wouldn't there be a substantial risk that future presidents would feel emboldened to commit crimes without fear of consequences while in office? asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "If someone with such immense power and authority could enter the Oval Office knowing that they would face no full penalty for committing crimes, I'm trying to comprehend what the disincentive would be from transforming the White House into the hub of criminal activity in our nation.""

Will a close, contentious election loss by an incumbent lead to a cycle that destabilizes our country as a democracy if the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent after leaving office?

The ruling of the court will have significant consequences for the presidency, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated.

At a New York construction site, Trump discussed the stakes of the argument even though he was not present during it.

""Immunity is necessary for a president, otherwise they are merely a ceremonial leader," he stated on Thursday morning."

The court's expedited ruling, expected in May or June, will determine whether any criminal trial can begin before the November presidential election. If the outcome is favorable, jury selection could begin by late summer or early fall. Alternatively, the case could be delayed indefinitely or dismissed altogether.

The consequences of the current situation are immense, affecting not only the immediate political landscape but also the future of the presidency and the rule of law.

Trump, as the presumptive GOP nominee, is hoping that his broad constitutional claims will result in a legal respite from the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, which includes three justices appointed by him.

The former president has been charged by Special Counsel Jack Smith with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

The charges against Smith were a result of his investigation into Trump's alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election results, which included participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count and the subsequent January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Smith and several of his deputies were present during the arguments.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

The courtroom arguments explored the "outer perimeter" of criminal executive liability by raising a series of hypotheticals.

Some justices questioned if a president could ever be charged with ordering the assassination of a political opponent, launching a nuclear strike, or accepting a bribe for a political appointment.

"If you remove the official aspect from the indictment, it's like a one-legged stool," said Chief Justice John Roberts, implying that official executive actions could be distinguished from partisan, unofficial actions. "In other words, giving someone money isn't bribery unless you receive something in return. And if what you receive in return is an ambassadorship to a specific country, that is official: the appointment that falls within the president's prerogatives. The unofficial part: I'll receive $1,000,000 for it."

Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether President Trump could stage a coup to remain in office. When John Sauer, Trump's attorney, evaded an answer, Kagan responded, "That response seems to me as though, under my test, it's an official act," which could be subject to post-office prosecution. "But that sure sounds bad, doesn't it?"

The Constitution does not include an immunity clause for the president because the president is not a monarch and is not meant to be above the law.

The Special Counsel's office was defended by Michael Dreeben, an attorney.

""All former presidents are aware that they could be indicted and convicted, as it is common knowledge and was further solidified by Watergate," he stated."

An ex-president could face criminal prosecution only if impeached and convicted in the Senate, as Sauer suggested.

"Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that there are numerous individuals who could be impeached, including those seated on the bench, and that impeachment does not necessarily lead to criminal prosecution for other officers. She questioned why the president is being treated differently when the impeachment clause does not specify it."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the specific accusations against Trump and other potential criminal liabilities, which have not yet been considered by a jury. "I find it difficult to believe that anyone would consider it reasonable for a president or any public official to engage in activities such as creating false documents, submitting false documents, ordering the assassination of a rival, accepting bribes, and breaking countless other laws for personal gain."

As President George W. Bush's staff secretary and a key White House legal adviser on executive power, Kavanaugh raised larger concerns.

He stated that he was not fixated on the present of the case but was deeply worried about its future.

Justice Neil Gorsuch stated, "We're establishing a rule that will endure."

Trump is facing criminal charges in three different jurisdictions: a federal case related to his handling of classified information while in office, a Georgia case concerning alleged interference in the 2020 election, and a New York case involving fraud related to hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York state case began April 15.

The start of the election interference trial in Washington is uncertain. The court's decision may delay proceedings until later this summer, early fall, or much later.

If Trump is re-elected, he may order his attorney general to dismiss the special counsel and their cases, and some justices questioned whether Trump could grant himself a self-pardon for all past and future crimes.

Currently, Jack Smith's case is on hold.

The Court is expediting the appeal, which would typically be decided at the end of its term in late June, so a ruling could come sooner.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the government, the trial court will resume all discovery and pre-trial activities that were previously paused.

Trump's team would likely argue for at least several months before being ready for a jury trial, according to their team's argument to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan.

If the former president wins a sweeping constitutional victory, his election interference prosecution may collapse, and his other pending criminal and civil cases could be implicated.

Even if Trump eventually loses before the Supreme Court, he may have gained a short-term victory by delaying any trial indefinitely, which may extend beyond Election Day on Nov. 5.

The case is Trump v. U.S. (23-939).