A criminal case against former president Donald Trump on the grounds of alleged election interference is considered to be one of the most "promising," and could set precedent going forward.

This according to an opinion article in The Hill, where Opinion Contributor James Zirin asserts that the Supreme Court might get to decide the fate of multiple other cases pending against the former president.

The case, before Judge Tanya Chutkan has a trail date of March 4, which is one day before Super Tuesday, the biggest primary day in the United States.

The case has already moved toward jury selection, and imposed a gag order against the former president, which has been litigated and affirmed on appeal by Trump's attorneys.

According to the assessment by Zirin, the former president is "trying everything he can to delay the trial until after the 2024 election."

This despite previous assertions that the case would go to the Supreme Court to be heard before several judges who Trump himself appointed on a conservative-leaning majority bench.

The surprising change in the case came when special counsel Jack Smith, the prosecutor in this case, asked the nation's high court to decide whether the president has immunity, now, opting to attempt to jump the D.C. Circuit court where the case is slated to be heard .

This move is of interest, partially because it is a similar tact to that used in the now-famous 1974 former President Richard Nixon Watergate scandal dealing with his recordings.

Despite Smith's attempts, it's been widely reported that the D.C. Circuit court has recognized the case's judge's dedication to a speedy trial, noting it in their opinion on the appeal of the "gag order" that restrains Trump from some comments he could make about the ongoing litigation.

The opinion pice's author asserts that "the appellate judges dropped this luscious bomb on page 48 of their ruling: 'The general election is almost a year away, and will long postdate the trial in this case.'”

In accordance with Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount, a Supreme Court case from 1982, an appeal by a party halts the lower court's authority with regard to "aspects of the case involved in the appeal."

Alternatively stated, the subordinate court's authority to adjudicate the case is revoked. In the event that Chutkan's immunity decision is overturned, the case will cease to exist; therefore, the Griggs decision may cause a postponement in the commencement of the trial.

Therefore, it is up to our highest court to decide whether Trump can be tried on the January 6 charges, and the answer will likely come sooner rather than later. There will be no need for additional pre-trial delays—or perhaps no case at all—once the Supreme Court decides on the arguments on double jeopardy and immunity.