Former President Donald Trump was convicted of multiple felony counts on Thursday by a New York jury, and while his defense attorneys will undoubtedly seek to reverse that verdict through the normal appellate process, some of Trump's allies are urging him to take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Among those is House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who predicted the Supreme Court would ultimately "step in" to intervene in the "totally unprecedented" prosecution and conviction of a former president, according to Axios.

The Louisiana Republican's remarks came during an appearance Friday on "Fox & Friends" to share his reaction to the guilty verdict in the overtly partisan prosecutorial effort against the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

"I do believe the Supreme Court should step in"

During the interview, Speaker Johnson, himself a former attorney, was asked about the appellate process and whether the U.S. Supreme Court might get involved in the state court matter because of its obvious impact on the upcoming federal election in November.

"There's a lot of developments yet to come, but I do believe the Supreme Court should step in -- obviously, this is totally unprecedented, and it's dangerous to our system," Johnson replied. "This is diminishing the American people's faith in our system of justice itself, and to maintain a republic you have to have that."

I think that the Justices on the court -- I know many of them personally -- I think they are deeply concerned about that, as we are. So I think they'll set this straight, but it's going to take a while," he said and added a moment later, "This will be overturned, guys, there's no question about it, it's just going to take some time to do it."

Later in the conversation, Johnson was asked about the Supreme Court's impending ruling on former President Trump's immunity claim, and he replied, "I do believe the court needs to address that clearly. We have to set a standard here."

He spoke of the importance of the immunity principle to protect presidents from "rogue" prosecutors and added, "That principle needs to be made concrete and be expanded. I think this court will do the right thing because they see the abuse of the system right now, and that's the greatest peril here of all at the end of the day."

Trump's constitutional rights were violated by state court judge and prosecutor

Speaker Johnson is not alone in suggesting the Supreme Court can and should intervene in former President Trump's New York criminal case, as the Daily Wire reported that other legal experts have made similar claims, including Roger Severino, an attorney and fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who argued that Trump's defense attorneys could submit to the high court "constitutional arguments that his right to a fair trial was violated."

"And the Constitution means something," he continued. "It means, if anything, you cannot jail political opponents because you don’t like what the American people are going to vote for."

"Ultimately, I think the Supreme Court, if he doesn’t win on appeal, will take this up and reverse. This is a political prosecution. We are better than this as a country and this cannot stand," Severino said, and added of the prospect of Trump being imprisoned, "It would be shameful if this judge were to order this man to go to jail when they weren’t able to point to any victims. This is so shocking and unprecedented that we’re even discussing the possibility of putting political opponents in jail in the middle of an election."

Mark Levin urges Supreme Court intervention

Another legal expert who has been calling for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court even before the jury rendered its verdict is conservative talk radio host and attorney Mark Levin, who drew comparisons to the 2000 Bush v. Gore intervention that occurred because a state court, the Florida Supreme Court, treated voters unequally during a federal election.

Citing a friend and former clerk of the late Chief Justice Warren Burger, Levin explained that Trump's attorneys could seek a rare "common law writ" for the Supreme Court to "review a conviction by a rogue court" based upon "the denial of due process by not informing Donald Trump of the underlying federal crime he was alleged to have committed -- the predicate crime that NY law requires to prove the NY crime."

In a separate X post, Levin warned that if left unchecked, other "local prosecutors and state judges will intervene in presidential elections or any federal election." He wrote, "We need to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to intervene," and later added, "In the end, the S Ct will not be able to avoid this forever. Better to deal with now than later, when it will get worse."