Trump's federal criminal cases on the line as Supreme Court prepares to argue over whether he is immune from prosecution

Donald Trump's lawyers will get to try to persuade the Supreme Court of his  immunity from prosecution from his time as president in a blockbuster hearing Thursday, as Jack Smith tries to get his January 6 case back on track.

Trump and his team have argued that all presidents would be undermined if Trump isn't allowed to assert the immunity from prosecution for 'official acts' as president he claims to enjoy. 

'If you don’t have immunity you’re not going to do anything, you’re just going to become a ceremonial president,' Trump said in New York Thursday before his Stormy Daniels trial was set to resume.

His lawyers even told an appeals court a president could order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and avoid prosecution.

But legal experts don't expect court's conservative 6-3 majority – including three justices nominated by Trump – to go along with his claim. A decision that burns up time or remands a decision to lower courts to sift through any new immunity test could still play to Trump's benefit.

Trump's trial in Washington, D.C. has ground to a halt pending the his legal claim, which comes amid a series of successful efforts to delay his four criminal trials. It also could impact his three other criminal trials related to his retention of national security information at Mar-a-Lago, his election overturn effort in Georgia, and the Stormy Daniels case.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on former President Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution from actions during his time in office

The court showdown comes as Trump's trial resumes in criminal court in Manhattan over 'hush' payments to the porn star, in just the latest demonstration of how his 2024 campaign is being fought in the courthouse. 

Trump's lawyers laid out the spent of the protection they argue he enjoys when an appeals court panel heard the matter in a January hearing.

Judge Florence Pan asked Trump lawyer John Sauer: ‘A yes or no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, be subject to a criminal prosecution?' 

'If he were impeached and convicted first,' responded Sauer.

'So your answer is no,’ shot back Pan.

'My answer is qualified yes...you'd expect a speedy impeachment and conviction,’ Sauer said. It was just one of the hypotheticals she put to Trump's team before the panel ruled against his claim. 

The Supreme Court in February agreed to hear the matter on an expedited basis. But the move still stalled the January 6 case, having failed to take a speedier action by simply allowing the appeals court's decision to stand. That considerably raised the chance the case would not go to trial before the November elections.

Trump on Thursday said immunity from prosecution was critical. 'We have a big case today, these judges aren't allowing me to go, we have a big case today at the Supreme Court, on presidential immunity. A president has to have immunity, if you don't have immunity you have just a ceremonial president,' he said

There were a smattering of protesters outside the high court following arguments on an abortion issue Wednesday

Trump met with construction workers in New York Thursday morning

The Supreme Court already ruled in Trump's favor after a Colorado Supreme Court ruling kicked him off the ballot there

Trump was indicted in Washington, D.C. over his election overturn effort in 2020

Special Counsel Jack Smith invoked the Nixon pardon in his April brief to the high court

A lawyer for former President Donald Trump (right) faced a blizzard of questions from a three-judge appeals court panel over his claims of presidential immunity – including whether he could use the military to assassinate a political rival

Even a ruling against Trump might not come out until June. 

Smith ripped Trump's claim in his filing to the high court. 

'The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts,' he wrote.

'Petitioner asserts a novel and sweeping immunity from the federal criminal laws that govern all citizens’ conduct,' he wrote. 

'No presidential power at issue in this case entitles the President to claim immunity from the general federal criminal prohibitions supporting the charges: fraud against the United States, obstruction of official proceedings, and denial of the right to vote. The President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them,' he wrote.

Smith pointed to a prior constitutional crisis, arguing that Nixon's acceptance of a pardon from Gerald Ford demonstrated the president enjoyed no such immunity. 

'The closest historical analogue is President Nixon’s official conduct in Watergate, and his acceptance of a pardon implied his and President Ford’s recognition that a former President was subject to prosecution. Since Watergate, the Department of Justice has held the view that a former President may face criminal prosecution, and Independent and Special Counsels have operated from that same understanding. Until petitioner.'

Justices are expected to grill lawyers on the application of the 1982 Nixon vs. Fitzgerald, which immunizes a president from private civil damages. But it 'does not extend to federal criminal prosecutions,' according to Smith.

The hearing starts at 10 am and is expected to last two hours – overlapping with Manhattan testimony by ex-National Enquirer CEO David Pecker. 

Trump's team argues that the Constitution's Impeachment clause is in their corner. The Impeachment Judgment Clause says an officeholder convicted by the Senate shall nevertheless be 'liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment.'

But Smith's team says it would be ridiculous to require a conviction in the Congress, a political body, in order for prosecution for crimes unrelated to official conduct. 

Trump on Thursday said immunity from prosecution was critical, after complaining that New York judge Juan Merchan refused to let him attend the hearing in D.C. 

'We have a big case today, these judges aren't allowing me to go, we have a big case today at the Supreme Court, on presidential immunity. A president has to have immunity, if you don't have immunity you have just a ceremonial president,' Trump said.