The central question at hand is whether a former president enjoys immunity for conduct alleged to involve official acts during their tenure in office.

Special counsel Jack Smith is leading the prosecution against Trump, arguing that there is no precedent for such broad immunity claims. Lower courts have previously rejected Trump's immunity argument, affirming that former presidents can be prosecuted for any criminal acts committed while in office.

Legal experts are closely analyzing the Supreme Court's precise framing of the issue and predict that the court may reject Trump's expansive immunity claims while potentially recognizing protection for core presidential functions like military orders, pardons, and official firings.

The Supreme Court's decision, which is expected to be made after oral arguments in April, could define the legal boundaries of presidential immunity and have significant implications not only for Trump but also for the conduct of future presidents.

The court's meticulous handling of the case, including the exclusion of Trump's argument related to previous impeachment proceedings, demonstrates a careful approach to the complex legal matter at hand. Moreover, the court's focus on immunity for a former president and conduct involving official acts further narrows the scope of the debate.

As the legal battle unfolds, all eyes are on the Supreme Court's deliberations and the potential precedent-setting impact of their ruling on the boundaries of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.