A local legal expert is weighing in on the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic ruling on presidential immunity.

Well-known local attorney and legal expert Paul DerOhannesian said the ruling had immediate and broad implications—setting a certain standard for prosecuting a president.

“There was no real law on this topic. This is new,” DerOhannesian said.

The 6-3 ruling saw the court’s three liberal justices warn of extreme and wide-ranging consequences that damage the country’s democracy.

“I think there’s a question in this whole decision of where the line will be drawn, but I think it does move the line closer to presidential immunity for a variety of acts—not just in this indictment, but in general,” he said.

It’s the first time the nation’s highest court has addressed this question.

DerOhannesian said the decision necessitates a hearing at the trial court level to decide which acts were unofficial and up for prosecution. He said it would add another layer to the process of prosecuting a president.

“To the extent that there’s a question as to whether or not an act is official, and was taken officially, the trial court has to have a hearing on this. It has to make a decision. How will it do that? Will it take testimony? How complicated will that hearing be?” he said.

In the immediate case of former President Donald Trump’s election interference charges, he said, “It certainly gives a lot more protection and a lot more ammunition to the Trump defense to argue these acts cannot be prosecuted. But it doesn’t shut the door on them entirely.”

The majority expressed concern over leaving official acts up for prosecution.

“The concern, according to the chief judge, is that the president would pull back on difficult decisions, knowing that he or she could be prosecuted for those decisions,” DerOhannesian said.