After the Supreme Court granted substantial immunity to the Republican candidate for 2024, federal prosecutors filed a fresh indictment against the former president Donald Trump in the case that was brought on January 6, 2019.

According to a court filing on Tuesday afternoon, a spokesman of Special Counsel Jack Smith stated that the superseding charge, which was given to a grand jury who had never heard any evidence in the J6 matter, “reflects the Government’s efforts to implement and respect the Supreme Court’s holdings and instructions for remand.”

Smith, according to reports, has been consulting other officials in the U.S. Department of Justice about the Trump case for several weeks.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity has whittled down the accusations against Trump. The four charges against Trump that were initially filed by the prosecution have not been dropped, and he is still charged with these same alleged offenses. The current indictment does not include all of Trump’s alleged behavior.

A number of claims have been changed. The biggest change was noted by POLITICO’s senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney.

Some analysts have pointed out the differences between the indictment of the new charges and the original.

The Supreme Court, led by Clarence Thomas, sided with Trump in July. They ruled that Trump was immune from prosecution only for his “core” actions. Actions that are “core to” his official duties.

The election interference case is unlikely to be brought before the November presidential election.

Legal experts weigh in on this latest development.

Professor Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University, said: “The superseding charge is the Special Counsel’s attempt to adhere the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling without showing the prosecution’s cards in a evidentiary hearing or mini trial.” Jack Smith wants to move quickly and preserve his case.

The Special Counsel’s superseding Indictment relies disproportionately on Trump’s Georgia actions as evidence of illegal conspiracies that fall outside of the scope of Presidential Immunity, emphasizing Trump’s status as a presidential candidate.

Anna Bower, senior editor at Lawfare, said: “The superseding ofdictment returned to Washington today reflects an attempt by prosecutors in order to remove portions from the original indictment which would be immune for prosecution under the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.”