The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it would hear arguments and make a decision regarding whether the former President Trump was immune from prosecution in the January 6 mob attack at the U.S. Capitol.

Even if they ultimately rule against Trump’s case, the decision to intervene will delay his trial by several months. This could cause the criminal case to be heard before the fall election, as the campaign for the elections intensifies.

The Justices announced that they would hear arguments during the week of April 22, 2019.

They will determine the following: whether — and to what extent — former presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution if their conduct was alleged to have involved official acts while in office.

1776 Coalition Sponsored Is Israel’s fate tied to Syria? Syria has fallen, but we are still far from seeing the last of the hostages returned. Our brave soldiers must fight to secure Israel’s borders, rid the region of emboldened attackers all over the Middle East, and adapt to the escalating threats from Syria, but Israel doesn’t have enough supplies to properly win this war. Can you support our IDF sons and daughters as they continue fighting for the Survival of the Promised Land?.

The Justices did not say anything else.

It is unclear if some justices think Trump has a strong case for immunity for purported acts of official president or if instead they are following the normal rules the court uses to resolve a major constitutional issue.

Many legal experts have criticized Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for the actions he takes as president.

Trump’s lawyer claimed in a court hearing that the former President could still be protected from prosecution if he told a Navy SEAL Team to kill one his political opponents.

Jack Smith, the special counsel for Trump, said that Trump was charged with crimes which “hit at the core of our democracy.” The alleged criminal plot of a president to thwart a peaceful transfer of power and overturn an electoral result should not be a place where he is granted absolute immunity.

A grand jury in Washington indicted Trump on four felony charges that stemmed from his efforts – some public, some private – to prevent Joe Biden being certified the winner of 2020 elections.

In an attempt to stop a trial, Trump’s lawyers claimed that a former President is protected from criminal charges due to his “official actions” during his time in office.

Tanya Chutkan, a U.S. district judge, disagreed with the ruling and stated that the Constitution does not provide absolute immunity to former presidents. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Circuit upheld her decision in a unanimous 3-0 decision.

Trump’s attorneys filed an urgent appeal on Feb. 12 urging the Justices to put the case aside while their appeals were considered. The lawyers said that Trump’s “claim” that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution because of their official acts is a novel and complex question that deserves careful consideration in an appeal. If the prosecution against a president was upheld, then such prosecutions would recur, and they would become more common, bringing about destructive cycles of recrimination.

The high court noted that a rule of itss calls for review when a court of appeals “has resolved an important federal law question that has not yet been decided by this [Supreme] Court, but should have been.”

In December, Smith cited this rule when he urged the justices in the case of Trump to hear it immediately. Smith stated that it was “of paramount public importance” for the high court to resolve Trump’s immunity claims.

The justices rejected his request for a quick-track decision and sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals. They then ruled in Trump’s favor.

The special counsel reversed his position this month and suggested that the justices refuse to decide on Trump’s appeal. This would allow the trial of Jan. 6, 2019 to start in the spring. He said that granting review now would “threaten to frustrate public interest in a swift and fair verdict.”

He said that as a backup, the justices could hear the case and make a decision on a speedy schedule in March.

The special counsel did not mention the election campaign, or Trump’s position as a favorite to win Republican presidential nomination.

If the trial is postponed until the late summer, then the special counsel could run into problems with the Justice Department policy to avoid prosecutions which might affect an election.

Attorney. Merrick Garland, the General of the United States Army, issued a memo stating that partisan politics should not be a factor in any decisions made by prosecutors about criminal charges or investigations. Prosecutors cannot choose the timing of their public statements or take any other actions in any case or matter to influence an election. This, or even the appearance of this, would be incompatible with the mission of the [Justice] Department.”

Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith wrote in the Lawfare Blog that the “rush to court” of the special counsel was unacceptable. He also said Smith could run afoul of the Justice Department policy against election interference.

Goldsmith, senior fellow at Hoover Institution, said that if Biden’s Justice Department convicts Trump before the election, Trump’s image will be damaged and Joe Biden would benefit.

The attorneys for Alabama, along with 21 other Republican-led state urged the court not to rush in deciding Trump’s appeal. The attorneys said that their “states are representing millions of Americans who worry about the timing of this prosecution, which is calculated to silence President Biden’s rival or imprison him.”

They said that the court shouldn’t “allow the prosecution to proceed with breakneck speed” and “put the apparent frontrunner” of the Republican presidential nomination on trial “in the run-up to the election.”

Former Republican officials, such as former Missouri Sen. John Danforth, have said that granting immunity to Trump could lead to a military coup in the future.

Former officials in a friend of the court brief wrote that “the last thing the nation or presidency needs is to encourage presidents who are defeated to commit federal criminal statute violations… in order to prevent the vesting executive power” to their legal successor.

If that qualifies for absolute immunity, it would set a precedent encouraging a future President to violate federal criminal laws by using the military and federal agents armed with guns to try to change the results of an election.