The Supreme Court on Thursday appeared likely to reject former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution over election interference, but it seemed possible Trump could still benefit from a lengthy trial delay, possibly beyond November’s election.

Chief Justice John Roberts was among at least five members of the court who did not appear to embrace the claim of absolute immunity that would stop special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump on charges he conspired to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Justices on the Supreme Court voiced skepticism Thursday to assertions from former President Trump’s attorneys that presidential immunity could extend to an attempted coup or the assassination of a political rival, even as they seemed ready to offer some protections from criminal prosecution.

Such a ruling could create a new cycle of legal battles that in turn could delay Trump’s federal election subversion trial — and his other trials — past the election. 

The Supreme Court on Thursday appeared open to a middle-ground approach to a bid by former President Donald Trump to invoke presidential immunity to shake off his criminal charges.

The nine justices asked Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, pointed questions about whether presidents had “absolute immunity” from prosecution as they weighed Trump’s argument that he was protected under the Constitution from being charged for his actions after the 2020 election. Arguing on behalf of special counsel Jack Smith was veteran litigant Michael Dreeben.