In a surprising turn of events, former President Donald Trump might consider asking a judge to declare an end to the election case against him, according to New York law professor Stephen Gillers. This bold move comes after chief prosecutor Jack Smith filed a new indictment, replacing an older one, in response to a Supreme Court ruling on July 1. The ruling granted the president broad immunity from prosecution, except for private conduct.

The new indictment, focusing on Trump's alleged private conduct rather than his presidential actions, is expected to face a major legal challenge from Trump's legal team. Gillers suggests that Trump could make a bolder argument, claiming that no hearing is necessary because the conduct in question is unquestionably official, not private.

However, Gillers emphasizes that merely labeling the conduct as private does not guarantee acceptance by the courts or by Trump himself. He notes that a hearing will be needed to establish the facts surrounding the alleged conduct before Judge Tanya Chutkan and eventually higher courts can determine whether or not it can be classified as private and therefore immune.

The indictment against Trump alleges that he worked to overturn the results of the 2020 election leading up to the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, has consistently called the case a political witch hunt.

The Supreme Court ruling on July 1, by a 6-3 majority, affirmed that presidents possess broad immunity for official acts. However, the court clarified that presidents have no immunity for strictly private conduct. Additionally, the ruling established that official acts cannot be used as evidence when bringing a case against a president for unofficial acts, a significant aspect relevant to the Trump case.

Newsweek reached out for comments from Trump's attorneys and the office of special counsel Smith but has yet to receive a response.

Gillers also suggests that instead of pursuing criminal acts in Trump's personal capacity, Smith could have tried to challenge the presumption of immunity for official acts based on legislation. Nevertheless, Smith chose to focus on alleged criminal acts committed by Trump in his personal capacity, where the Court has stated he has no immunity at all.

As the legal battle ensues, all eyes will be on the upcoming hearing before Judge Chutkan to determine the nature of the alleged conduct and whether or not it falls under immunity. This case has significant implications as it tests the boundaries of presidential immunity, providing further clarity on the extent to which a former president can be held accountable for their actions.