In a highly anticipated move, the Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would not immediately determine whether former President Donald Trump has broad immunity for actions he took challenging his 2020 election loss. This decision comes in response to special counsel Jack Smith's request to bypass the normal appeals court process and expedite the resolution of this crucial question in Trump's prosecution in Washington.

The court's refusal means that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will be the first to address the issue, with oral arguments scheduled for January 9. Depending on the ruling of the Appeals Court, the Supreme Court may then intervene and decide whether to take up the case.

Smith, in his request for expedited intervention, argued that this case raises a fundamental question about the boundaries of presidential immunity, posing a significant challenge to our democracy. On the other hand, Trump's legal team downplayed the urgency of the matter, emphasizing that there was no compelling reason for the Supreme Court to intervene before the lower court proceedings were completed.

The dispute stems from a motion filed by Trump in December, in which he sought to dismiss his indictment on the basis of presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. However, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington denied the motion, leading to the ongoing appeal.

Trump's lawyers contend that his efforts to contest the election results were within the scope of his official responsibilities as president, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling. They argue that under Supreme Court precedent, Trump is immune from prosecution for these actions. Furthermore, they claim that Trump's acquittal by the Senate in his impeachment trial related to the events of January 6, 2021, should shield him from separate criminal proceedings for the same actions.

Smith, however, argues that Trump's attempts to overturn the election were unrelated to his official duties, and therefore, he should not be protected by presidential immunity. He points to the language of the Constitution, which allows for separate criminal proceedings even if a president is acquitted in an impeachment trial.

Trump currently faces four criminal prosecutions, including the election interference case, as he eyes a potential run for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential election. The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for his political future.

The Supreme Court's decision to let the appeals court take the lead on this pivotal question ensures that the case will follow the established judicial process. As the appeals court's ruling approaches, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court, waiting to see if they will ultimately weigh in on the crucial issue of presidential immunity in the context of election actions.