The Supreme Court is now entangled in the federal criminal case accusing Donald Trump of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. And it could have far-reaching implications for the timing and outcome of the trial.

The court’s decisions could help determine whether the trial in Washington actually moves forward before voters make their choice in November. And the other criminal cases against the former president have either been slowed by challenges or are waiting for the Washington trial to happen.

The court had one element of the case thrust upon it and chose to take up another, all in the span of three days.

First, on Monday, Jack Smith, the special counsel leading the election interference prosecution, asked the justices to fast-track an appeal of Trump’s attempts to have the case thrown out on broad claims of executive immunity.

Then, on Wednesday, the court abruptly announced that it would review an obstruction charge in a separate case, but one that sits at the heart of the election case against Trump. Smith was planning to use the charge as a way of holding Trump accountable for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

While the court’s decisions on the immunity issue and on the obstruction charge may not come for some time, when they do arrive they could radically alter the shape, scope and timing of the election case.

Worst-case scenarios for Smith and his team include the possibilities that the trial could be significantly delayed; that two of the main charges against Trump could be dismissed; or even that the indictment could be thrown out (though that is far less likely.)

It is also possible that the Supreme Court could actually help to nudge the case toward trial or rule in a way that upholds the obstruction charge against Trump — a count that strikes directly at his attempts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of presidential power on Jan. 6.

But this week was a reminder of just how quickly the direction of a criminal case can change — and how extensive the reach of the Supreme Court can be on issues with profound political implications.

Weighing in on immunity

Let’s start with the events of Monday.

That was when Smith filed an emergency petition to the Supreme Court asking it to weigh in on Trump’s attempts to appeal the defeat of one of his central defenses against the election interference charges: that he was absolutely immune to them because they arose from actions he took while he was president.

Smith’s request to the court was unusual for two reasons. He not only asked the justices to leapfrog the normal order of things and rule on Trump’s claims before a lower appeals court even got to consider them. He also asked them to make their decision quickly in an effort to ensure that the case goes to trial in Federal District Court in Washington, as scheduled, in March.

Prosecutors obviously want to win the immunity fight and prevent Trump from getting the case dismissed. Still, Smith’s request to the Supreme Court wasn’t solely about legal issues. It was equally, if not more, compelled by a deep concern about the schedule of the case.

In his filing to the court, Smith admitted that an ordinary — or even a relatively fast — appeal could take a long time. And prosecutors want to avoid significant delays.

After all, if Trump manages to push the trial until after the election and wins the race, he would have the power to simply order the charges against him to be dropped, something he and some of his advisers have made clear in private that he intends to do. Holding the trial after the race was decided would also mean that voters weighing in on whether to elect Trump again would not have had the chance to hear all of the evidence that Smith’s team has collected.

A challenge to a key charge

The Supreme Court’s move on Wednesday opened up a different possibility: that an obstruction charge that forms the basis of two of the counts in Trump’s indictment could be stricken from the case. That charge makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct an official proceeding. Smith used the count to accuse Trump of disrupting the certification of the election at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The obstruction count was never a good fit for what happened on Jan. 6. It was originally passed as part of a corporate governance law that forbade things like destroying documents or tampering with witnesses. But prosecutors used it in lieu of more politically contentious charges like insurrection or sedition to describe how the mob disrupted the election certification at the Capitol.

If the Supreme Court rules that the statute was improperly stretched to cover Trump’s involvement in that disruption, it would be bad news for the government. Indeed, it could cripple Smith’s attempts to pin the violence on Jan. 6 on Trump.

Prosecutors seemed prepared to put the riot at the center of their trial story. Smith’s team has indicated they want to show the jury videos of the mob attack and perhaps present testimony from rioters claiming they stormed the Capitol on Trump’s instructions.

Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the obstruction count, it would not affect the other two charges Trump is facing. One accuses him of conspiring to commit fraud by using lies that the election had stolen to reverse his defeat. The other charges him with plotting to deprive millions of Americans of the right to have their votes counted.

In confronting the two issues, the court, willingly or not, is now in the middle of the politically explosive controversy over Trump’s efforts to retain power after his 2020 defeat, a subject that until now it had shown little appetite for engaging in. The implications for the justices are considerable, as they are for Trump and Jack Smith.

Your questions

We’re asking readers what they’d like to know about the Trump cases: the charges, the procedure, the important players or anything else. You can send us your question by filling out this form.

Is Trump getting special treatment compared to other citizens? Henk Van Der Veer, Netherlands

Alan: The judge in the federal case in Washington, Tanya Chutkan, has promised she intends to treat Trump no better or worse than any other defendant. That said, as a former president and his party’s leading candidate for 2024, he is not a typical defendant and is using strategies unavailable to the average citizen. He is claiming that the concept of presidential immunity means he cannot be prosecuted for actions he took in office, an assertion that may be taken up by the Supreme Court. And because he is a candidate, he is arguing that a gag order imposed on him in Washington case curtailed his “core political speech,” an argument that a federal appeals court took seriously.

Where does each criminal case stand?

Trump is at the center of at least four separate criminal investigations, at both the state and federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers. Here is where each case currently stands.

What to watch next week

• On Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers are expected to file their response to Smith’s emergency request to Supreme Court to have the justices quickly consider his claims that he is immune to the election interference charges.

• On a similar but separate track, Trump’s lawyers have a deadline of next Saturday to file their legal briefs on the immunity issue to a federal appeals court in Washington, which will hear the case on an expedited schedule.

More Trump coverage

• European diplomats are worried that a second Trump presidency could mean an American retreat from the continent and a gutting of NATO.

• The final witness in the New York fraud trial testified on Wednesday. A decision from the judge is expected next year.

• Trump and his allies are laying the groundwork for a possible second Trump presidency with an even more extreme agenda. Here’s what we know.

Thanks for reading the Trump on Trial newsletter. See you next time. — Alan and Maggie.

Read past editions of the newsletter here.

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here.