In a recent development, former President Donald Trump's lawyers have requested the US Supreme Court to find that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office. This plea comes in an attempt to dismiss the federal criminal case against Trump regarding his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The arguments from Trump were presented in a 67-page brief submitted to the court on Tuesday, just ahead of the oral arguments scheduled for April 25. During these arguments, the justices will deliberate on the extent to which a former president can claim absolute immunity from prosecution for alleged conduct involving official acts.

Trump's brief emphasizes the need to preserve the tradition of presidential immunity, which is viewed as a vital pillar of the nation's democratic system. The document contends that the charges brought against Trump, related to his plot to obstruct the transfer of power after the election, fell within the "outer perimeter" of his presidential duties and should be protected.

According to Trump's lawyers, his attempts to reverse the election outcome, including pressuring Vice President Mike Pence and organizing fake slates of electors, should be regarded as protected activities. They argue that a ruling in favor of Trump's broad interpretation of un-reviewable presidential power would not only uphold his immunity but would also necessitate full dismissal of the indictment.

These arguments align with the positions previously taken by Trump's lawyers before the US District Judge Tanya Chutkan and the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Both courts rejected Trump's claims of immunity as grounds for dismissal.

The former president's brief echoes his long-standing assertion that presidents can only be criminally prosecuted following conviction in a Senate impeachment trial. Trump's lawyers also express concerns over potential future presidents facing threats of prosecution, which could restrict their ability to make crucial decisions without second-guessing from prosecutors.

Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of presidential immunity, even on a charge-by-charge basis, Trump's lawyers suggest that the indictment be reviewed in detail by lower courts to determine which alleged illegal actions should be struck out.

It is worth noting that Trump's strategy of seeking delay in the proceedings has been partially successful, as the involvement of the Supreme Court has resulted in the case being put on hold. Trump's ultimate aim reportedly includes potentially securing a second presidency, allowing him to issue self-pardons or appoint an attorney general who would drop the charges.

The Supreme Court's involvement now means that the case will remain frozen until a ruling is issued. However, even if the court rules against Trump, the trial may not commence until later in the summer or even beyond. Trump is entitled to the remaining "defense preparation time" from the date he filed his first appeal to the DC Circuit, which could delay the trial until the Supreme Court's final decision is added.

As oral arguments are scheduled for April, a ruling might be expected in May. In the worst-case scenario for the special counsel, the Supreme Court might not issue a decision until the end of its current term in July, potentially pushing the trial to late September.

The fate of Trump's federal criminal case now hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate on absolute presidential immunity and its implications for a former commander-in-chief facing legal consequences for his actions while in office.