In an unprecedented and historic case, the Supreme Court is set to weigh the limits of presidential immunity on Thursday, with significant implications for former President Donald Trump, his legal battles, and the 2024 race for the White House.

Trump is putting forth an argument that has already been dismissed by two lower courts, claiming that even as a former executive, he remains immune from prosecution for official actions he took while in office. Prosecutors, however, see this as a novel argument that would shield presidents from the criminal justice system even after they leave office.

On the bench are three conservative justices nominated by Trump himself - Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. However, the court's decision could potentially go against claims from the assumed Republican nominee, indicating that he should indeed be subject to prosecution.

This will be the first time the justices consider an appeal arising from one of Trump's four criminal indictments, and their ruling could determine whether these cases ever reach a jury. Critics of Trump argue that a decision favoring the former president's arguments would drastically alter the balance of power in the country, empowering presidents both in and out of office to an excessive extent.

John Dean, the former White House counsel to President Nixon and a frequent critic of Trump, voiced his concern, stating, "It's so fundamental to the presidency, where a president is truly trying to corrupt the system and perpetuate himself in office. If Trump can get away with doing what he did, we don't have a democracy."

Trump, on his part, has repeatedly emphasized that the presidency cannot function without immunity, suggesting that without it, officeholders would be vulnerable to extortion and unfair retribution. Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Monday, "Without Immunity, the Presidency, as we know it, will no longer exist. Many actions for the benefit of our Country will not be taken. This is in no way what the Founders had in mind."

Federal prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith argue that presidents, like any other citizens, need to be held accountable if they commit crimes. They reject the notion that such accountability would undermine presidential power. In court filings, they state, "The effective functioning of the Presidency does not require that a former President be immune from accountability for these alleged violations of federal criminal law. To the contrary, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law - including the President."

Regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, the timing of the decision could impact whether any of Trump's other criminal cases proceed to a jury before November. In the presidential election, where Trump is narrowly ahead of President Biden in most key swing states, a narrow margin is expected, and the uncertainty surrounding Trump's legal challenges adds to the ambiguity.

As oral arguments take place on Thursday, Trump's hush money trial is also being held in a New York state court, creating a unique split screen in American history. The first American president to face a criminal trial will do so while his attorneys argue for his immunity at the Supreme Court. However, the judge in Trump's hush money criminal trial refused to excuse him from the proceedings in New York, stating, "He's required to be here, he's not required to be at the Supreme Court."

Representing Trump at the Supreme Court will be D. John Sauer, a central figure in Trump's appellate legal team. Michael Dreeben, who was part of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, will represent prosecutor Jack Smith. Although they are on opposing sides, both lawyers look to the Nixon era for guidance.

Trump's attorneys heavily rely on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, where the Supreme Court held that ex-presidents have immunity from civil damages claims for their official acts in office. Trump argues that the same doctrine should apply in the criminal context. Prosecutors counter, stating that strong institutional checks in the criminal system alleviate concerns of ex-presidents facing numerous lawsuits from private parties. They also point out that Nixon's acceptance of a pardon from then-President Ford for the Watergate scandal suggests that ex-presidents can indeed face criminal prosecution.

This potentially landmark case is closely watched due to its potential impact on Trump's legal charges and its timing. A swift rejection of Trump's immunity arguments would send the case back to the district court, reigniting the paused proceedings. Lower courts have been highly critical of Trump's arguments, indicating that the conservative-majority Supreme Court may follow suit. However, the true insight into the justices' thinking will be revealed when they take the bench on Thursday.

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution," wrote the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in rejecting Trump's claim.