In a historic case set to be heard on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the question of whether a president can be immune from criminal prosecution. This comes as former President Donald Trump appeals a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel that rejected his claim of "absolute presidential immunity."

The pivotal moment during the appeals court hearing emerged when Judge Florence Pan posed a hypothetical inquiry: Could a commander in chief order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and evade criminal charges? Trump's attorney, John Sauer, suggested that under certain circumstances, the president could order such an act.

Judge Pan sought a straightforward answer, asking if a president who issued such an order but wasn't impeached would face criminal prosecution. Sauer responded, "If he were impeached and convicted first," implying that criminal liability would only come into play after impeachment and conviction.

The exchange provoked strong reactions from both sides. Special counsel attorney James Pearce deemed the theory "frightening," questioning the repercussions of living in a world where a president could order the assassination of a political rival without facing criminal consequences.

Ultimately, the three-judge panel unanimously struck down Trump's immunity argument, refusing to accept his claim that a president has unlimited authority to commit crimes. They cautioned that such a stance would undermine the separation of powers, upon which the U.S. system is built.

In his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Trump continues to fight for his immunity, and his attorney, Sauer, will represent him during the upcoming arguments. The fallout from Sauer's response has been significant, with various amicus briefs raising concerns about the precedent set by his qualified yes to Judge Pan's question.

Supporters of Trump argued that regardless of immunity, a president should not have the authority to order the military to assassinate a political rival, asserting that the military would refuse to carry out such an order. However, others expressed doubt, stating that subordinates might not defy a presidential order, thereby highlighting the need for protections against a criminal president's influence over the military.

The Supreme Court's decision will weigh heavily on Trump's fate. He is the first president, both current and former, to face criminal charges. The outcome of the case will determine whether he stands trial on four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy against rights, prior to the November election. Trump maintains his innocence and has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The question of presidential immunity presents an unprecedented constitutional dilemma for the Supreme Court. As the legal battle escalates, the nation anxiously awaits the outcome that will shape the future of presidential accountability and the limits of executive power.