In the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision that former President Donald Trump has some immunity from prosecution for his acts while in office, Judge Tanya Chutkan will be closely reviewing the federal government’s indictment of Trump on charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 election.

Chutkan, the district court judge presiding over the federal election case, is expected to hold hearings to determine which of Trump’s alleged actions included in the indictment were unofficial — and therefore potentially prosecutable, under the Supreme Court’s ruling — and which were official and therefore protected.

For a close look at those actions laid out in the government’s indictment of Trump, watch Democracy on Trial. The 2.5-hour FRONTLINE documentary examined the roots and ramifications of the federal government’s election case against Trump, as well as Trump’s defense and his claims of absolute immunity.

As the documentary explored, special counsel Jack Smith’s four-count felony indictment alleges that, while carrying out a criminal conspiracy to defraud the U.S., Trump worked to interfere with the federal government’s counting of votes; that he obstructed the Jan. 6, 2021, certification of President Joe Biden’s win; and that he worked to deny voters the right to have their votes counted. Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has pleaded not guilty to the charges, insisted that the case against him is politically motivated, and claimed “absolute immunity” for actions taken during the course of doing his job as president.

Read More: A Guide to the Criminal Cases Against Donald Trump

The Supreme Court’s July 1 decision has already narrowed the scope of the indictment by stating that Trump is “absolutely immune” from prosecution for his conversations with officials at the Justice Department — conversations that, as Democracy on Trial reported, put pressure on the department to support Trump’s false claims of widespread election fraud.

Democracy on Trial reported on another element of the federal case against Trump: His alleged pressure campaign on then-Vice President Mike Pence to help him stay in power. The Supreme Court’s ruling said Trump’s alleged urging of Pence to alter the certification of election results involved official conduct and Trump was therefore “presumptively immune,” but that the government could try to rebut that presumption “under the circumstances.” The ruling said the lower court should assess “whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

The ruling left it to the lower court to determine whether Trump’s pressure campaign on state officials to overturn the presidential election results qualified as within his official duties. Those interactions are examined in detail in the documentary, including through accounts from state officials in Georgia and Arizona.

Read More: Rusty Bowers, Witness on a Central Charge of Trump Indictment, Speaks Out

The majority-conservative Supreme Court also left it to the lower court to evaluate whether other actions taken by Trump described in the indictment were official or unofficial — including Trump’s tweets following his election loss. As Democracy on Trial examined, Trump called for his supporters to march on Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, the day Congress gathered to certify Biden’s victory. A mob of Trump’s supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol that day disrupting Congress’ proceedings for several hours.

The federal election case against Trump had been on hold pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump’s claims of absolute immunity. The reevaluation mandated by the court’s 6-3 decision is expected to further delay Trump’s trial proceedings, making a federal trial before the November 2024 election even more unlikely.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s legal team moved to set aside his late May conviction in New York state. That historic jury verdict made him the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a felony. Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a “hush money” payment made to an adult film star to prevent a scandal from circulating during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Read More: A Historic Criminal Conviction and Trump’s Ex-‘Fixer’

The impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling on additional criminal cases against Trump, including a Georgia state prosecution for efforts to overturn the election and a federal prosecution about improper handling of classified documents, remains to be seen.

For more perspective and legal analysis on the four-count federal indictment against Trump, explore interviews from the making of Democracy on Trial. The collection is part of FRONTLINE’s Transparency Project, which makes our source material available to the public. For more on the Supreme Court and how its conservative majority came to be, watch Supreme Revenge: Battle for the Court.

---