Not all of the justices agreed, however -- and a decision is expected by June.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
The justices grappled with the monumental question of if -- and if so, to what extent -- former presidents enjoy immunity for conduct alleged to involve official acts during their time in office.
Trump claims "absolute" protection for what he calls official acts, though he denies all wrongdoing. The high court divided over this, but most of the conservative-leaning justices in the majority seemed open to some version of it while still excluding a president's "private" conduct.
The high court's ruling will determine if Trump stands trial before the November election on four charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. A decision is expected by June.
Oral arguments have begun in Donald J. Trump v. United States.
Arguing for Trump is attorney D. John Sauer. Presenting for Smith is Michael R. Dreeben, who has argued more than 100 cases before the nation's high court.
As Trump headed into court on Thursday morning for his ongoing trial in New York (he has pleaded not guilty), he continued to weigh in on the presidential immunity case.
"I think that the Supreme Court has a very important argument before it today," he told reporters as he entered the hallway inside a Manhattan courtroom for his hush money trial. "I would have loved to have been there but this judge would not allow me to be there."
Trump argued that the president "has to have immunity," repeating a claim that federal prosecutors and some judges have so far said would upend the rule of law.
"This has to do with a president in the future for 100 years from now," he said. "If you don't have immunity, you're not going to do anything. You're going to become a ceremonial president. It's just going to be doing nothing, you're not going to take any of the risks, both good and bad."
-ABC News' Kelsey Walsh and Michael Pappano
There is "nothing in the text of the Constitution that speaks to immunity in one way or another," said David Schultz, a national expert in constitutional law.
But there is textual evidence from the Constitution's framers -- including Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton -- about how they viewed the issue.
"We have language from some framers indicating that even if there might have been some immunity while a person was president of the United States, once they've left office there's no immunity and they could be charged with the crime," Schultz said.
Read more about what history says about immunity here.
Just a few demonstrators stood in front of the Supreme Court -- which is wrapped in security fencing -- ahead of the hearing Thursday morning.
They held signs including ones that read "Absolute immunity = absolute tyranny" and "Loser."
-ABC News' Devin Dwyer
