A little over a year ago, special counsel Jack Smith indicted former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. There was a sense of déjà vu when Smith revealed on Tuesday that he had obtained a superseding indictment against Trump, maintaining the same four counts but with the support of a different federal grand jury.

When comparing the version delivered on Tuesday with the original from last year, the changes appear aimed at deconstructing the charges against Trump with the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on the issue. Smith did not take the most cautious approach he could have taken, paring the case down to its bare essentials to fully shield it from further Supreme Court intervention. Instead, he has chosen to try the strongest case available against Trump within the shackles the court has now imposed on him.

The most obvious changes concern the court’s sweeping decision in Trump v. United States . The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that all presidents, including Trump, have absolute immunity from criminal charges for exercising their “core constitutional duties.” Roberts specifically cited Trump’s communications with the Justice Department — in which he attempted to coerce the Justice Department into supporting his false election claims — as off-limits to prosecution.

Smith has complied by removing all DOJ evidence from the indictment’s narrative, along with all references to Justice Department officials who contradicted his lies about mass voter fraud. Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark is no longer an unnamed, unindicted accomplice. Also gone are all references to the White House counsel and most references to conversations Trump may have had with people on his executive branch staff.

In addition to absolute immunity for the core duties of a president, Roberts also ruled that there is “presumptive immunity” for matters that fall within the scope of the president’s “other official actions.” It will now be up to Smith to convince U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan which of Trump’s actions were “unofficial” and therefore outside the scope of this presumptive immunity — but he cannot use “official actions” as evidence to argue why immunity should not be granted. The special counsel has risen to that challenge with flying colors.

In the new complaint, Smith carefully lays out why many of the steps Trump and his allies took were in no way part of the president’s job. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to Trump’s pressure campaign against former Vice President Mike Pence. After numerous other avenues had failed, Trump leaned on Pence to simply declare him the winner when he presided over the counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021. The opinion in Trump v. U.S. indicated that those conversations between the president and vice president could fall within the scope of presumptive immunity, but Smith pulled no punches in dissenting:

Moreover, Smith is emphatic that many of the people acting on Trump’s behalf did so in the name of his presidential campaignnot his presidency. There are still six unindicted accomplices listed in the document, he writes, “none of whom were government officials during the conspiracies and all of whom acted in a private capacity.” The new indictment also focuses on the role of then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who attempted to use his former position as a cover to avoid investigation or indictment. Smith now clarifies that Meadows “sometimes handled private and campaign-related logistics for the defendant” in describing Trump’s now-infamous phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Interestingly, the changes in the new indictment also appear to take into account a second Supreme Court ruling. Days before the decision in Trump v. U.S., the court ruled in Fischer v. United States, which considered the Justice Department’s use of a federal statute against obstruction of an official proceeding. About a quarter of the Jan. 6 defendants were charged under Section 1512(c)(2) for their role in disrupting the counting of electoral votes, the Justice Department said.

There was concern when the case was reviewed that the court would invalidate two of the four charges against Trump entirely. The 6-3 decision narrowed the scope of the law at issue, but did so in a way that left the charges against the former president intact. Roberts, again the author of the majority opinion, wrote that prosecutors must now show that defendants “impaired, or attempted to impair, the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of any data, documents, objects, or, as we have previously explained, other things used in the proceeding.”

In the new indictment, Smith’s team has done just that. In describing the actual events of the January 6 attack, the new version adds more detail about Congress’ work that day to certify the Electoral College votes, focusing on the documents that threatened the rioters after they stormed the Capitol. In that shift, the prosecution now also emphasizes the time determination of the attack and its purpose to disrupt the counting of votes.

“At approximately 1:11 p.m., the Vice President opened the ballots and certificates of suffrage that the legitimate electors of the State of Arizona had sent to Washington, in accordance with the (Electoral Count Act),” the complaint now reads. Two paragraphs later, after noting that Trump was back at the White House watching the events unfold, the complaint describes the Capitol being stormed and the Senate forced into recess. “At approximately 2:20 p.m., with official proceedings suspended, staff members evacuating the Senate seized the electors’ ballots and their governors’ certificates of suffrage,” Smith wrote.

The superseding indictment is not guaranteed to move the trial, which was originally scheduled to begin last March. There are still several elements that Chutkan must decide whether to include in his arguments. Trump’s lawyers will likely object to the prosecution’s references to his conversations with Pence, arguing that those conversations were within the scope of his office. But they may ultimately do everything they can to further delay the proceedings.

And thanks to the vagueness of the immunity test that Roberts highlighted, whatever Chutkan rules will likely be appealed. The case could even end up back in the Supreme Court, as I previously predicted, giving the conservative justices another chance to cover for Trump. But Smith has done much of the heavy lifting to ensure that, should Trump lose in November, this case can continue into the next administration.