Experts break down what the Constitution, framers said about 'presidential immunity'

It's a key question in a case that could not only set constitutional precedent but also have major consequences in the 2024 election: What is «presidential immunity» and how, if at all, does it apply to former President Donald Trump regarding his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss?

On Tuesday, Trump's claim of «absolute immunity» from prosecution in his federal election inference case will be put to the test in arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The former president, who denies all wrongdoing, contends his actions after the election and on Jan. 6, 2021, were related not to his role as a candidate but to his official constitutional duty to «take care that the laws be faithfully executed» — in this case to investigate alleged but unproven election fraud.

Because of that, he argues, he's protected from criminal liability. He points as well to his being acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial on charges of «incitement of insurrection» as another shield from litigation.

Special counsel Jack Smith asserts Trump «is wrong» and that his arguments «threaten to undermine democracy.»

The case, which is likely to wind up back before the U.S. Supreme Court, will chart new legal ground, experts told ABC News as they broke down the history and precedent of «presidential immunity.»

«These are novel issues and they're going to have to create new law,» said attorney Stanley Brand, a former House of Representatives general counsel whose law firm represents several former Trump aides.

Trump has posted on social media that he will attend the Jan. 9 hearing. In the post, he also continued his claim that he was «entitled» as president to immunity, arguing he was no longer campaigning but