An American federal appeals panel ruled today, Tuesday, on the possibility of prosecuting Donald Trump on charges of conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election, rejecting the former president's claims that he is immune from prosecution.

This decision represents the second time in several months that judges have rejected immunity arguments presented by Trump, and they see that he can be tried for acts committed during his time in the White House and the period preceding January 6, 2021, when a crowd stormed the U.S. Capitol building. However, it also paves the way for further appeals by the former Republican president that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

The trial was originally scheduled for March, but it was postponed last week, and the judge did not immediately set a new date.

The trial date carries enormous political implications, as the Republican primary candidate hopes to delay it until after the November elections. If Trump defeats President Joe Biden, he will likely try to use his position as president of the executive branch to order the new attorney general to drop the federal cases or possibly seek a pardon for himself.

The appeals court took center stage in the immunity dispute after the Supreme Court last month said it would temporarily at least step back from this dispute and rejected a request from special counsel Jack Smith for expedited consideration and a quick ruling.

The question that has not been legally tested before the court is whether former presidents can be tried after leaving office for actions taken in the White House related to their official duties.

The Supreme Court ruled that presidents enjoy immunity from civil liability for official acts, and Trump's lawyers claimed for several months that this protection should extend to criminal prosecution as well.

They argued that the actions Trump was accused of in his failed attempt to cling to power after losing the 2020 election to Biden, including persuading his vice president to refuse to certify election results, all fall within the "outer perimeter" of presidential official acts policy.

But Smith's team said there is no such immunity in the U.S. Constitution or prior cases, and that Trump's actions, in any case, were not part of his official duties.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who presides over the case, rejected Trump's arguments in an opinion issued on December 1, stating that the office of the president "does not grant a license to break the law forever."

Trump's lawyers then appealed to the District of Columbia Circuit Court, but Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in first, hoping for a swift and final ruling to keep the trial date on March 4. The Supreme Court denied the request and left the matter to the appeals court.

The case was heard before judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, appointed by Biden, a Democrat, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican. The judges expressed skepticism about Trump's claims during last month's arguments, bombarding his lawyer with tough questions and raising a series of radical hypotheticals as a way to test his legal theory on immunity — including whether a president who ordered Navy SEALs to assassinate a political rival could be prosecuted.

Trump's attorney, Dr. John Rowley, answered yes, but only if the president is impeached and convicted by Congress. This view aligned with the team's position that the Constitution does not allow prosecution of former presidents who have been impeached and then acquitted, like Trump.

The Washington case is one of four criminal trials Trump faces as he seeks to regain the White House this year. He faces federal charges in Florida for unlawfully retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home, the case also brought by Smith and set for trial in May. He is also charged in a Georgia state court with plotting to sabotage that state's 2020 election, and in New York regarding hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. He has denied any wrongdoing.