In July, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents like Donald Trump have at least some immunity from criminal prosecution for their "official acts" as president, but it seems like not everybody has familiarized themselves with or will adhere to that significant ruling.

D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissively laughed off the SCOTUS immunity ruling when it was referenced by one of Trump's attorneys during a contentious hearing on Thursday in the former president's federal 2020 election-related case, The Federalist reported.

That was just one of several instances in which the judge overtly displayed her unmistakable bias against Trump and favoritism toward the federal prosecutors seeking to convict and imprison him for his post-2020 election actions.

Supreme Court's rulings on presidential immunity and obstruction charge given short shrift

In July, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their core constitutional duties and presumptive immunity for all "official acts," and though they can be prosecuted for allegedly criminal "unofficial" or private acts, none of their core of official acts can be used as evidence against them.

That came just days after a separate ruling from the high court that sharply questioned and largely struck down as overbroad the Justice Department's dubious use of a particular obstruction charge against Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants -- and former President Trump.

It would appear that neither Judge Chutkan nor Special Counsel Jack Smith held either of those major opinions in high regard, as even though Smith recently filed a newly revised criminal indictment against Trump that slightly narrowed the allegations against him, it still retains the questionable obstruction charge as well as presumptively immune official acts, both as charged offenses and as evidence of other supposed crimes.

Judge dismissive of Supreme Court's rulings

During Thursday's hearing, per a New York Times rundown of the proceedings, Trump's attorney John Lauro referenced the "crystal clear" immunity ruling from the Supreme Court but received "chuckles" and an eye roll in response from Judge Chutkan.

When the attorney also argued at one point that certain portions of the indictment fell under the presumptive immunity for official acts protection, such as his election-related interactions with Vice President Mike Pence, the judge seemed to dismiss the high court's opinion on that matter and declared that she would decide what was and wasn't "official" and protected.

At another point, Lauro referenced Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence to the immunity ruling that raised serious questions about Special Counsel Smith's initial appointment and funding -- which led to the dismissal of Trump's classified documents case brought by Smith in South Florida -- but Chutkan sneered that she found the written opinions of Thomas and Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon to be not "particularly persuasive."

Timing of the election is "not relevant" to the judge

Unfortunately, those were not the only displays of Judge Chutkan's prejudice against former President Trump, as she also granted an unheard of request for prosecutors to release a special brief just prior to November's election that will outline and expand upon the criminal allegations against the GOP nominee without any way for him to effectively respond to what will undoubtedly be a politically damaging document.

When Trump's attorney Lauro objected to the egregious timing of what amounts to a partisan opposition research dump right before voters cast their ballots, Chutkan fired back that the impending election was "not relevant here" and "nothing I’m going to consider."

Later during the hearing, when Lauro again referenced how unfair the timing of the special counsel's evidentiary brief would be, the judge chastised him and said, "It strikes me that what you’re trying to do is affect the presentation of evidence in this case so as to not impinge on an election."

Judge was "pretty salty" toward Trump's attorney

Even the reporter for The Times was compelled to observe in his coverage of the hearing that Judge Chutkan was "being pretty salty" with Trump's lawyer.

In the end, the judge seemed to lament that her eventual decisions on the former president's immunity would be appealed no matter which way she ruled, and thus she refused to set a future trial date because, she declared, doing so would be an "exercise in futility."