There is a Supreme Court case in which Donald Trump is not a party, yet, depending on how the high court rules, it could make Special Counsel Jack Smith's job prosecuting the former president very difficult.
Jeffrey Rosen, professor at George Washington University Law School, appeared on CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta, where he was asked about the cases involving Trump. On Fani Willis, Rosen indicated that "defendants are supposed to use every legal avenue, and in fact challenging prosecutions can be productive as we saw in the Hunter Biden case, where the key informant was just disqualified for lying."
Smith, however, has a different concern, according to Rosen.
ALSO READ: How Speaker Mike Johnson’s dream of bipartisan decency died in his hands
For Smith, Rosen said, it's all about the Supreme Court and timing.
"The Jack Smith timing depends on first, what the Supreme Court does, is it going to rehear immunity or just uphold the D.C. circuit?" he asked. "But then next month there's a centrally important case in the Supreme Court where the court's going to decide whether the core of Jack Smith's charges involving obstruction of justice are consistent with Constitution and the law or not."
He continued:
"If they throw those out, that's going to be a stake in the heart of the Jack Smith case. It won't prevent it, but it'll make it much harder to pursue."
The case he is referencing appears to be Joseph W. Fischer v. United States, which has been categorized as a "sleeping giant" case by Politco reporting.
"At issue is whether prosecutors and the Department of Justice have been improperly using a 2002 law originally aimed at curbing financial crimes to prosecute a Jan. 6 defendant named Joseph Fischer," the outlet reported. "Should the court side with Fischer, it would also call into question the use of the law against other Jan. 6 defendants — including Trump."
