The New York Times just published a report explaining how the U.S. Supreme Court could, essentially, put an end to Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of former President Donald Trump. 

This comes after the justices of the court, last week, heard oral arguments regarding Trump's presidential immunity defense.

In brief, Trump claims that some of the charges that have been brought against him by Smith and the others are barred by the doctrine of presidential immunity - a doctrine that protects U.S. presidents from prosecution for official acts.

The bad news for Smith is that the court, during those oral arguments, seemed to be siding with Trump's lawyers a lot more than it was siding with Smith's lawyers.

Here's why this is so important:

The New York Times' Alan Feuer believes that the Supreme Court "could end up helping Mr. Trump in two ways."

"The justices signaled that their ruling, when it comes, could lead to some allegations being stripped from the federal indictment charging Mr. Trump with plotting to overturn the 2020 election," Feuer writes.

He adds, "And because the process of determining which accusations to keep and which to throw away could take several months, it would all but kill the chance of Mr. Trump
standing trial on charges that he tried to subvert the last election before voters get to decide whether to choose him again in this one."

This is just as important - if not more important - than Feuer's first point.

It is no secret that Smith is trying to obtain a criminal conviction of Trump before the 2024 presidential election, and the reason why is obvious: it would be easier for President Joe Biden to run against Trump if he could call Trump a convicted felon. If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, however, Smith and Biden might not get their wish.

Looking forward

The justices are not expected to rule in this immunity case until the end of their current term, which would be sometime in June.

During oral arguments, it seemed fairly clear that a majority of the justices were siding with Trump. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito particularly stood out.

They all hit Smith's lawyers with difficult questions, questions that suggested that they were not buying into Smith's arguments.

Thomas even went a step further, suggesting that Smith does not even have the authority to prosecute Trump.

It remains to be seen how this is all going to play out. But, things are looking good for Trump, at least with regard to this Supreme Court immunity case.