In the next few months, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan will face what she herself recently called “a uniquely challenging” task. She will go line by line through the evidence the special counsel, Jack Smith, wants to present to a jury in support of his federal indictment charging former President Donald J. Trump on four criminal charges related to his plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

Her job is to determine which of myriad specific allegations about Mr. Trump’s actions can survive the Supreme Court’s recent ruling granting presidents a broad form of immunity from criminal prosecution for most of their official actions. Here is a look at the types of decisions Judge Chutkan will have to make, many times over.

If Mr. Trump undertook a specific action in his private capacity as a candidate for office, rather than in his role as the president, that act is deemed unofficial, according to the Supreme Court ruling. Such acts are not subject to immunity, so evidence about them can be cited in court to support the charges that Mr. Trump illegally tried to overturn the election, or even introduced as context to help a jury understand the case.

By contrast, if the action fell within what the Supreme Court referred to as the outer perimeter of presidential duties, it counts as official. In that case, it is entitled to, at a minimum, presumptive immunity, and the court must perform some additional analysis to decide whether it is off limits for any trial.

On matters like Mr. Trump’s attempts to strong-arm state officials into changing election results and his public lies that the election was stolen, prosecutors and defense attorneys are likely to disagree sharply about whether Mr. Trump was acting as a candidate who was seeking a new term in office, or as a president who was constitutionally charged with overseeing the enforcement of federal election laws.

Under the Supreme Court’s new doctrine, “official” actions by Mr. Trump would fall into one of two categories. Some official acts are core to the president’s exercise of executive power, in which case they are absolutely immune and no information about them can be used in his prosecution. Other official acts are more peripheral, in which case prosecutors might still be able to use information about them in court, depending on the circumstances.

The Supreme Court has already declared that Mr. Trump’s interactions with Justice Department officials count as core executive actions because the Constitution charges the president with overseeing federal law enforcement. Mr. Smith has removed discussion of his purported actions that fall into that category from the indictment.

A president’s peripheral official acts, the Supreme Court has said, are presumptively immune, too. But depending on the circumstances, exceptions can be made that would allow the information to still be part of a prosecution of that president.

The test is whether prosecuting a former president for such an action would pose a danger of intruding on the authority and functions of the executive branch, and therefore chilling future presidents from robustly carrying out their responsibilities. If not, then the act is not immune and evidence about it can be used in court.

The Supreme Court has said that Mr. Trump’s pressuring of then-Vice President Mike Pence, in his capacity as Senate president, to block the congressional certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s Electoral College victory was an official act but that it might fall into the exception, since the Constitution assigns no role to the president or executive branch in such proceedings.

Judge Chutkan won’t make any decisions on immunity until at least the end of October, when the defense and prosecution have finished submitting their own written assessments of the case. At that point, she could ask the two sides to flesh out their arguments further at a hearing in Federal District Court in Washington. Any determinations she makes on the question of immunity will almost certainly be appealed, likely eventually to the Supreme Court, which will have the final say of which parts of Mr. Trump’s indictment will have to be thrown out and which can survive and go to trial.

YORK, Pa. — The day after their vice presidential debate in New York City, Republican Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and Democratic Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota jumped back on the campaign trail with stops in two crucial battleground states.

As he arrived at the airport near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Wednesday, Walz pointed toward his debate hours earlier with Vance and told reporters, “New York City was a little crazy last night.”

Most pundits said Vance was the more polished of the two candidates on the vice presidential debate stage Tuesday night, although flash polls indicated debate watchers were mostly divided on which running mate was victorious.

An accidental response by Walz during the debate quickly went viral, as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate mistakenly said he had “become friends with school shooters.” 

2024 CASH DASH: TRUMP UPS HIS ANTE AS HE TRIES TO CLOSE GAP WITH HARRIS

The mishap occurred when Walz was asked about changing positions on banning assault weapons, which he previously opposed but now supports. 

“I sat in that office with those Sandy Hook parents. I’ve become friends with school shooters. I’ve seen it,” Walz said.

Asked to clarify his debate gaffe, Walz said Wednesday, “I’m super passionate about this. The question came up about the school shooting. We’re talking about everything except school shootings. And I sat as a member of Congress with the Sandy Hook parents, and it was a profound movement.

“David Hogg [a leading gun control activist and school shooting survivor] is a good friend of mine.”

VANCE, WALZ, SPAR OVER ISSUES AT VP DEBATE SHOWDOWN

Walz acknowledged “I need to be more specific on that. But I am passionate about this.”

Vance, speaking at a rally in Auburn Hills, Michigan, said he didn’t hear Walz’s comment until he was told about it during a conversation with his running mate, former President Trump, after the debate.

Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance of Ohio speaks at a rally in Auburn Hills, Mich., Oct. 2, 2024. (Associated Press)

“He said that Tim Walz said that he was friends with school shooters twice,” Vance said, referencing his conversation with Trump. “And that’s something I actually didn’t notice that Tim Walz had said that on the debate stage.

“I said, ‘Did he really say that, sir?’ And he [Trump] said, ‘I’m telling you, man, go and watch the clips.’

HARRIS, BIDEN, HEAD TO STORM-RAVAGED SOUTHEAST IN WAKE OF TRUMP TRIP

“And I said that was probably only the third or fourth-dumbest comment Tim Walz made that night.”

The debate moderators also confronted Walz on his claim to have been in Hong Kong during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing, China.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, headlines a rally in York, Pa., Oct. 2, 2024. (Fox News Digital/Paul Steinhauser)

Walz admitted he traveled to Asia in August 1989, several months after the April 15 massacre, adding he can be “a knucklehead at times.”

The governor on Wednesday reiterated that he had his “dates wrong.”

Trump, in an interview Wednesday with Fox News’ Brooke Singman, called his running mate’s performance “fantastic” and that it had “reconfirmed my choice.” 

The former president also argued that Walz had “embarrassed himself” during the debate.

Another major moment in the debate came near the end, when Vance wouldn’t say that President Biden won the 2020 election over Trump. The former president for four years has repeatedly made unproven claims that the election was rigged and rampant with voter fraud.

Walz, on Wednesday, once again emphasized that “it is disqualifying to not acknowledge that the 2020 election was won by Joe Biden. It’s as simple as that.”

An hour later, speaking to a large crowd at a rally at the York Fairgrounds, Walz charged that “you can’t rewrite history. And trying to mislead us about Donald Trump’s record. That’s gaslighting.”

Vance, asked about his avoidance of answering the 2020 election question during the debate, reiterated his charge on Wednesday that “the simple reason” is that “the media is obsessed with talking about the election of four years ago. I’m focused on the election of 33 days from now because I want to throw Kamala Harris out of office and get back to commonsense, economic policies.”

Walz arrived at his rally in York to cheers as he pulled into the York Exposition Center riding his campaign bus.

But York is Trump country. The former president won York County by roughly 25 points over Biden in 2020.

Walz’s Pennsylvania swing through Harrisburg, York and Reading kicked off what the Harris campaign described as a more aggressive post-debate travel and voter engagement blitz by the governor, with stops in two other battleground states — Arizona and Nevada — and a fundraising blitz in Ohio, California and Washington

And the campaign noted that Walz would participate in more media interviews. Vance has done dozens of interviews and repeatedly fielded questions from reporters on the campaign trail since Trump named the senator as his running mate 2½ months ago.

Vance made the first of his two stops in Michigan in Auburn Hills, at Visioneering, an automotive industry tool supplier.

Auburn Hills is in Oakland County, which has swung heavily toward the Democrats in recent election cycles. Biden carried the county by roughly 14 points over Trump four years ago.

Michigan and Pennsylvania are two of seven key battleground states whose razor-thin margins decided Biden’s 2020 victory over Trump and will likely determine whether Trump or Harris win the 2024 presidential election.

Fox News’ Deirdre Heavey and Kirill Clark contributed to this report

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Do vice-presidential debates matter? Conventional wisdom says no. Historically, polls have shown that those quadrennial 90 minutes have little effect on how people will vote in the presidential election.

Tuesday night’s debate between the Democratic nominee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and his Republican opponent, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, seems to be following that pattern. Some pundits have claimed that Vance, who delivered a polished and unflappable performance, “won” the debate; Walz appeared more nervous and fumbled several questions, although he did, according to fact-checkers, lie far less often. Walz also scored big at the end, when he pushed Vance to confirm that President Biden did win the 2020 election and called Vance‘s deflection “a damning nonanswer.”

According to instant post-debate polling, most voters considered the debate a tie, and both men saw bumps in their favorability ratings, although these are unlikely to change that fact that Walz’s numbers are unusually high while Vance’s are remarkably low.

None of which, as previously stated, will likely matter come November.

Except for one thing. One very important and rarely mentioned thing: If Donald Trump wins, Vance could very well become president. Which should be a concern considering how historically low Vance’s approval ratings are: Before the debate, Vance was more unpopular than any vice-presidential pick in modern history, including Sarah Palin, who is often credited with helping John McCain lose his election in 2008.

Vance would be, after all, a heartbeat away from the presidency. And should he win, the 78-year-old Trump would, by the end of his term, become the oldest president ever to hold the office.

And Trump’s recent rambling and nonsensical speeches, as well as his decision to refuse a second debate with his Democratic rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, and pull out of a scheduled “60 Minutes” interview, indicate that he may already be struggling with issues of cognition and/or stamina, in addition to whatever strategic reasons are behind the choices.

In addition to regular non sequiturs about sharks and Hannibal Lecter, and outrageous lies that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating their neighbors’ dogs and cats, Trump recently accused the president of North Korea of trying to kill him (he appears to have confused North Korea with Iran) and acknowledged that he doesn’t know what the Congo is (even as he falsely claimed that “many people” from there are flooding the U.S.)

It goes without saying that if Harris said any of these things, the press would be calling on her to step down. Which is precisely what happened after President Biden fumbled, in a far less dramatic way, his June debate against Trump.

In the absence of Biden on the campaign trail, Trump and Vance have been attacking Harris’ “policies,” which honestly displays a shocking ignorance about the role of vice president.

Those of us who have taken a high-school civics class, or seen at least one episode of “The West Wing” or “Veep,” understand that the main function of the vice president is to support the president, occasionally fill in for the president and, most important, assume the office of the presidency should the president die or become incapacitated.

Even if Trump’s notable lack of coherence and energy are not indications of mental and physical decline, the fact remains that Vance is, based on Trump’s age alone, among the vice-presidential candidates most likely to be called upon to fulfill that role in the history of the republic.

Yes, the guy who wrote the intro to Project 2025, who doesn’t trust people that don’t have children, who admitted that the racist tales about the Haitian community in Springfield were false but spread them anyway, who thinks that women should stay in abusive relationships for the sake of “family” and that the solution to our childcare problem is Grandma and who has referred to rape as an “inconvenience.” That guy could very well become our president.

So Tuesday night’s debate should be seen less as Vance facing off with Walz and more as Vance offering a preview of himself as leader of the free world.

As many have said in praising his performance, Vance offered a more polished version of Trump’s many ill-considered policies (tariffs, Project 2025), mischaracterizations (say, about the Biden administration’s responsibility for inflation) and outright lies (claiming that violent crime is up, for instance, or that most Americans support draconian abortion laws.)

Most important, by refusing to contradict Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election, Vance told us pretty much all we needed to know about his potential presidency. As an undecided Michigan voter told CNN after the debate: “I don’t think I can trust someone with my vote if they’re not going to respect it.”

When Biden defeated Trump in 2020, many worried that MAGA Republicans would next find a candidate who would push the same nationalistic, elitist and divisive agenda, only without the orange makeup, the many lawsuits and the tendency to veer off into narcissistic and often baffling rants.

Based on the vice-presidential debate, it looks like they have.