Former President Donald Trump's legal team scored a win for presidential immunity at the Supreme Court, The Hill reported. In the process, Trump also received an additional boost from Justice Clarence Thomas that could usher in a legal victory if his case is thrown out.

The defense team successfully pleaded that Trump had immunity in the election interference case because he was acting as the president then, Reuters reported. A lower court had rejected the claim, but Justice John Roberts threw out that decision.

In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote that the president may "execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly" without fearing prosecution. "As for a president's unofficial acts, there is no immunity," Roberts clarified.

That wasn't the end of the good news, however. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that may threaten the validity of other cases against Trump.

The Concurring Opinion

Thomas believes that special counsel Jack Smith may have been unlawfully appointed to prosecute Trump. If this is indeed true, it could negate other cases against the former president.

“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding,” Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion.

As MSNBC reported, Thomas began by explaining his purpose. "I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure," Thomas wrote.

"In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States." The Republican-appointed judge added that he's "not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires."

Still, he believes "questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause." This question has opened the door for the judge in Trump's classified documents case to throw the whole thing out.

Rescuing Trump

Thomas is correct that the constitutionality of Smith's appointment at least needs to be examined.  U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing Trump's federal prosecution in Florida, seems to have taken this objection seriously.

Even before Thomas' opinion, Cannon had agreed to a hearing on the matter of Smith's appointment. This has further delayed Trump's case, a fact which outrages the left intent on sidelining Trump during the campaign.

Predictably, Smith urged Cannon to ignore Thomas' concurring opinion, CNN noted. The special counsel filed a briefing Friday stating that there was no legal obligation to weigh Thomas' opinion in her ruling.

Smith further contended that the opinion was not "a sound basis to deviate from the uniform conclusion of all courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel." Cannon has not made any decision one way or the other, however.

Trump hasn't always gotten a fair shake in the justice system to date. However, Cannon could hand him a victory in throwing out his classified documents case if Thomas' opinion about Smith is compelling enough.