In a lengthy and complex oral argument, the Supreme Court seems poised to reject former President Donald Trump's claims of sweeping immunity in his federal election subversion case. However, the justices also appeared reluctant to grant special counsel Jack Smith unfettered authority to pursue charges against Trump. The outcome of this dispute could have significant implications for future presidents' legal exposure.

During the hearing, the court's conservatives aggressively questioned the special counsel's lawyer, echoing Trump's assertions that the absence of some form of immunity could lead to politically motivated prosecutions of future presidents. A key point of discussion revolved around distinguishing between Trump's official acts as president and his private conduct.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case will not only determine Trump's legal fate but also establish the rules for criminal exposure for subsequent presidents. However, it seemed increasingly unlikely that the court would provide a clear answer on whether Trump could be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Instead, the court appeared inclined to leave much of the work regarding the distinction between official and private acts to lower courts. Consequently, this could result in significant delays, potentially jeopardizing a trial before the November election and playing into Trump's strategy of delay.

Chief Justice John Roberts criticized the unanimous ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which had favored a swift trial for Trump. Roberts raised concerns regarding the court of appeals' reasoning, suggesting that it failed to adequately justify subjecting almost all of Trump's actions to prosecution.

Interestingly, Trump's attorney, John Sauer, made notable concessions during the hearing. In an earlier strategic shift, Sauer acknowledged that some of the alleged conduct supporting the criminal charges against Trump was indeed private. This move contrasts with Trump's previous stance, which sought to dismiss the entire prosecution.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Sauer regarding the distinction between official and personal acts in the charges, to which he tentatively agreed that private acts would not be covered by presidential immunity. However, in a later exchange, Sauer's position became less clear, muddying the waters on what should be considered official or private acts.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority, including Justice Barrett, expressed concerns about Trump's claim of "absolute" immunity. Sauer faced a barrage of hostile questions early on about the validity of this position.

While the court's three liberal justices seemed skeptical of Trump's immunity claims, their final positions were clear, as Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson focused on the potential implications of absolute immunity for future presidents. Kagan posed a hypothetical scenario about prosecuting a president who ordered a military coup.

The court's decision is expected to determine whether the case will be sent back to lower courts for further review. Barrett suggested a potential path for a quick trial by focusing on Trump's private acts rather than his official actions.

Prosecutors could potentially draft a streamlined indictment that excludes any potentially official acts, allowing the trial to proceed. However, the Supreme Court's stance on immunity for official actions remains unclear, adding complexity to the potential path forward.

As the nation awaits the Supreme Court's decision, it is evident that the outcome will have significant repercussions, delaying the trial and further entangling the legal complexities surrounding Trump's alleged election subversion.