In a high-stakes hearing on Thursday, the Supreme Court justices discussed the potential reshaping of presidential power as they examined whether former President Donald Trump should be granted immunity from prosecution for his alleged actions in the White House. These actions were related to his attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. The decision, which is expected by the end of June, could have significant implications for future presidents.

During the nearly three-hour session, Trump's attorney, John Sauer, and an attorney for special counsel Jack Smith presented their arguments. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing and has maintained that some of his actions were within his presidential authority.

One particularly provocative hypothetical scenario was raised by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She questioned Sauer about whether a president could order the military, such as SEAL Team 6, to assassinate a political rival and still claim immunity. Sauer's response suggested that such an act could potentially be considered an official act eligible for immunity. This prompted Sotomayor to question how immunity could apply even if the act was carried out for personal gain.

Justice Samuel Alito further expanded on the issue, questioning the plausibility of ordering elite military units to carry out unlawful acts. He cautioned against using official power in an outrageous manner, highlighting the importance of maintaining ethical conduct within the presidency.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Sauer's assertion that without immunity, future presidents would be deterred from taking official acts that could expose them to criminal prosecution. Jackson pointed out that presidents throughout history have understood the possibility of prosecution upon leaving office and referenced the pardon granted to President Richard Nixon.

The justices also touched upon the distinction between private and official conduct. Justice Neil Gorsuch affirmed that presidents can be prosecuted for private conduct once they leave office and asked about the process of distinguishing between the two.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett sought clarification on the extent of immunity, acknowledging that private acts do not enjoy the same protections. Sauer concurred with this observation.

The court's ultimate decision will need to address how to separate Trump's actions that fall within the protected realm of the presidency from those that exceed his authority and can be subject to prosecution. This distinction between official and private conduct will likely play a crucial role in the court's ruling.

As the nation awaits the Supreme Court's decision, the outcome of this case may set a precedent for how presidential power and immunity from prosecution are defined in the future.