Legal expert maps out realistic ways Trump can stop all of his trials

A legal expert warned the U.S. Supreme Court may have cleared a path for Donald Trump to bring an end to all of his criminal and civil trials if he's re-elected president.

Trump has emerged as the clear frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, despite facing 91 criminal charges in four separate cases and being found liable for fraud and sexual abuse.

But legal expert Paul Golden told Newsweek a court ruling from 1997 might let him halt court proceedings that might interfere with his work if re-elected.

A judge ruled, "That if the President could set forth and explain a conflict between a judicial proceeding and his or her ability to perform public duties, the President might be entitled to a postponement," said Golden, a partner at New York law firm Coffey ModicaGolden.

ALSO READ: How Democrats stormproof democracy from Hurricane Donald before Election Day

"One of many strategies a sitting president could use, therefore, would be to file a motion in the context of the state case, arguing that allowing a criminal case to continue would affect the president's ability to run the country," he went on. "But there are a host of other potential strategies available as well."

While the Constitution does not automatically grant immunity from civil lawsuits based on a president's private conduct, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion in the 1997 decision involving Bill Clinton that presidents could postpone civil lawsuits if they argued that it would interfere with their official duties.

"At that point, the Constitution permits a judge to schedule a trial in an ordinary civil damages action...only within the constraints of a constitutional principle — a principle that forbids a federal judge in such a case to interfere with the president's discharge of his public duties," Golden said.

That principle could apply to civil or criminal cases, Golden said.

The Justice Department has also concluded that federal criminal cases against sitting presidents are unconstitutional, but legal opinions are divided, and it's not clear how that would apply to prosecutions that originated before a president was re-elected following a four-year absence from the White House.

"It is unclear how the criminal trial would be handled if, in the middle of the trial, Mr. Trump were re-elected president," Golden said.

"Although the Department of Justice has concluded that criminal prosecution of a sitting president would be unconstitutional, its memos on the topic do not have the force of law until and unless a court adopts them. Even then, one court might not be bound by another court."