The US Supreme Court is scheduled to begin hearing oral arguments in former President Donald Trump's case for immunity from federal prosecution this week.
Legal experts were outraged in February when the high court agreed to hear the MAGA hopeful's claims as he aims to secure a second presidency despite facing four indictments and 88 felony counts.
In a Sunday, April 21 NBC News article Lawrence Hurley explains how the former president could still pull a win at the Supreme Court — even if the justices deny his claim.
READ MORE: Ex-prosecutor: SCOTUS 'lollygagging' on Trump immunity aids 'denigration of legal system'
Hurley reports that George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason said the justices "might think that there are some official duties that do merit immunity but leave it to a trial court to figure out how that applies to Trump's case."
He added, "The reason they took the case is because they want to write something more nuanced that accepts there may be immunity in some circumstances."
If the case goes back to US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan — who's presiding over Trump's DC January 6 case — Hurley reports, the move "would further imperil the chances of any trial being concluded before November's election."
Richard Bernstein, who Hurley notes is the attorney who filed a brief with SCOTUS on behalf of government seeking to smack down Trump's argument, said, "Trump’s first preference would be a ruling that he is immune, but a second preference would be a ruling that there is some kind of complicated factual test for immunity so it has to be remanded."
READ MORE: How the Supreme Court moved America 'a bit closer' to political 'Armageddon'': legal expert
Hurley emphasizes that some legal experts "say Trump has in many ways already won by persuading the Supreme Court not to intervene in the case at an earlier stage, making it less likely that a trial can take place before the election even if the immunity claim is outright rejected." He adds, "The court also dithered when deciding how to frame the legal question when it ultimately took up Trump's appeal."