In a significant development, former President Donald Trump's legal team is seeking to utilize the Supreme Court's recent decision on presidential immunity to bolster their defense in his criminal case in Florida concerning the mishandling of classified documents. Trump's attorneys filed a court motion on Friday requesting an updated schedule for the federal classified documents case, enabling them to present arguments related to the Supreme Court ruling.

According to Trump's legal team, the Supreme Court decision challenges the prosecution's claim that Trump has "no immunity" and highlights the politically-motivated nature of their contention that the defense's motions are 'frivolous.' While the Supreme Court ruling primarily pertains to the federal case involving election subversion efforts in Washington, D.C., it has the potential to impact all four criminal cases against the former president.

Trump's attorneys specifically pointed to Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence in the Supreme Court decision, questioning the legitimacy of the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith. They argue that Thomas' concurrence amplifies the arguments Trump has raised regarding Smith's appointment and funding.

Earlier reports indicated that Trump's legal team intended to utilize the Supreme Court opinion to seek the exclusion of crucial evidence in the classified documents case. Friday's court filing marks the initial step towards pursuing this strategy. However, this move is expected to further prolong the already complex and slow process leading to trial in Judge Aileen Cannon's courtroom in Fort Pierce, Florida.

Judge Cannon has yet to make rulings on several pretrial matters, including motions that have been pending for months. Among them is Trump's request to dismiss most of the charges based on his claim of presidential immunity for his decision to retain the classified records in Florida after leaving the White House.

Cannon is likely to consider the Supreme Court's recent ruling, which protects the president's core constitutional powers from prosecution and suggests the need for closer examination of other actions taken by the president to determine their immunity status. It's worth noting that Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, exhibited some interest in Trump's arguments during a recent hearing but has not issued a ruling on the matter thus far.

The utilization of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision in Trump's Florida criminal case adds another layer of complexity to an already intricate legal battle. As the courts grapple with these unprecedented issues, the outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of presidential immunity and the boundaries of executive power.