In a case with significant legal and political implications, the Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in a federal case accusing him of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The court's decision, whenever it comes, will have far-reaching consequences, potentially shaping the trial date for Trump in one of the four criminal prosecutions he currently faces.

At the heart of the matter is the question of whether a former president enjoys immunity from federal prosecution for official acts. Trump's lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity, warning of the potential floodgate of prosecutions if immunity is denied. They also cite a previous Supreme Court ruling that granted presidents immunity from civil liability for official acts, asserting that the same principle should apply in a criminal context.

Special counsel Jack Smith's team, however, maintains that the Founding Fathers never intended for presidents to be above the law. They argue that the acts Trump is charged with, including allegedly participating in a scheme to enlist fake electors, were not part of a president's official duties.

This historic case marks the first time in the country's history that the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to weigh in on whether a former president can be prosecuted. While Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, there is no bar against charging a former president.

The Supreme Court's decision could have profound implications for Trump's potential trial. A swift resolution in favor of the Justice Department could lead to a trial as early as this fall. However, if the court takes until late June to reach a decision, it increases the likelihood that the November presidential election will occur without a jury weighing in on Trump's alleged criminal responsibility for the events leading up to the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.

Should the Supreme Court reject Trump's immunity claim, the prosecution would move forward, and the case would return to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to set a trial date. Alternatively, the Court could declare that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for conduct related to official acts during their time in office, effectively halting the prosecution. There is also the possibility that the case could be sent back to Judge Chutkan to determine whether the actions alleged against Trump constitute official acts.

The outcome of this case will not impact the concurrent hush-money trial in New York, as that case involves actions Trump took before assuming the presidency. Similarly, a federal case in Florida accusing Trump of withholding classified documents after leaving office is distinct from the current case before the Supreme Court.

The speed at which the court moves after arguments will depend on the level of agreement among the justices. It is anticipated that the court will conduct a preliminary vote shortly after arguments, with Chief Justice John Roberts potentially assigned to write the majority opinion.

In any scenario, if the court rules against Trump and in favor of the government, the case will return to Judge Chutkan. She will have the authority to restart trial preparations and schedule a trial date, although any trial is still likely several months away given the previous freeze on the case pending the outcome of Trump's appeal.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case is highly anticipated, as it will undoubtedly shape the understanding of presidential immunity and the potential future accountability of former presidents for their actions while in office.