The U.S. Supreme Court has granted former President Donald Trump a favorable opportunity this week by agreeing to review his case on presidential immunity. In a significant development, the high court has scheduled oral arguments for April 25 and aims to deliver a verdict by June.

Trump’s legal team will present arguments asserting his immunity from prosecution in a case initiated by Special Counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C. The allegations pertain to election interference. Notably, the criminal trial, which was filed in the court of U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, has been temporarily halted pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

Trump’s team argued that “if the prosecution of a President is upheld, such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recrimination.”

“Criminal prosecution, with its greater stigma and more severe penalties, imposes a far greater ‘personal vulnerability’ on the President than any civil penalty,” the request continues, according to Fox News. “The threat of future criminal prosecution by a politically opposed Administration will overshadow every future President’s official acts — especially the most politically controversial decisions.”

Trump’s request also says that the president’s “political opponents will seek to influence and control his or her decisions via effective extortion or blackmail with the threat, explicit or implicit, of indictment by a future, hostile Administration, for acts that do not warrant any such prosecution.”

Fox noted further:

“Smith charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. Those charges stemmed from Smith’s investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result.”

Andy McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, highlighted during a television appearance on Monday that there is a significant case that could potentially undermine Smith’s prosecutions of Trump. This case has been overlooked by many individuals. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Fischer v. United States, a case that revolves around an obstruction statute utilized by Smith to charge Trump. Oral arguments for this case are scheduled for April, as reported by the Daily Caller.

“The case to keep your eye on is the obstruction case,” McCarthy told “America’s Newsroom” co-host Bill Hemmer. “We miss it because Trump is not a party to that case. They are looking at the same statute that is key to Smith’s prosecution of Trump in Washington, and if they — as I expect they may, if they — if they say the Justice Department has not been correctly applying that statute, that’s going to have a catastrophic impact for Smith on his indictment.”

The Department of Justice has filed charges against multiple individuals connected to the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol building for breaching 18 USC Section 1512(c)(2), which involves obstructing or impeding an official proceeding. This violation is punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison.

“The D.C. Circuit’s expansion of Section 1512(c)(2) beyond evidence impairment to protests at the seat of government thus conflicts with the interpretations of other courts of appeal limiting the scope of the same statute,” attorneys for Joseph Fischer wrote in a brief to to the Supreme Court.

Several legal professionals have concurred with McCarthy. Jeffrey Rosen, a professor of law at George Washington University, who recently talked about the case on CNN, also connected it to a similar case being handled by the ex-president’s legal team concerning presidential immunity. He mentioned that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump, prosecuting and winning Smith’s case will become significantly more challenging.

“There’s a centrally important case in the Supreme Court where the Court’s going to decide whether the core of Jack Smith’s charges involving obstruction of justice are consistent with Constitution and the law or not,” he told CNN.