SCOTUS sees ‘dangerous precedent’ in Trump immunity case if presidents can prosecute rivals: experts

After a marathon debate over whether former President Trump should be granted presidential immunity for crimes alleged by Special Counsel Jack Smith, legal experts tell Fox News Digital that most of the Supreme Court justices appear concerned with how the ruling will impact the future functioning of the executive branch.

In nearly three hours of debate on Thursday, the high court wrestled with this question: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?"

Legal experts told Fox News Digital that while it appeared the majority wasn’t sold on the idea of absolute immunity, they could determine that Trump, and any future former presidents, should be granted a qualified version of it.

"I think the court recognizes that it would be a dangerous precedent if future presidents can prosecute their political rivals," Mark Brnovich, former attorney general of Arizona, told Fox News Digital.

TRUMP ATTORNEY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLASH ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT WHO 'ORDERED' A 'COUP' COULD BE PROSECUTED

"They will set a limiting principle because, under the prosecutor’s theory, future prosecutors would have a lot of power to persecute their political rivals," Brnovich said.

Over the course of questioning, the justices seemed generally split along ideological lines.

"If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office?" Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked in an exchange with Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer.

"Once we say, ‘No criminal liability, Mr. President, you can