In an unforeseen twist in the multi-pronged legal saga surrounding former US President Donald Trump, a rarely invoked constitutional provision could potentially provide a shield to Trump, allowing him to evade state sentences or trials, as reported by USA Today.

According to legal experts, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which states that federal laws reign supreme over state regulations in case of conflict, could be a game changer in Trump's current legal scenario. While it is clear that the Supremacy Clause, as the "supreme Law of the Land," doesn't grant immunity to a sitting president for crimes committed during their term, its applicability against criminal charges and sentences passed by state authorities on a former president is less known territory.

New York and Georgia house the two main cases Trump is currently embroiled in. The state of New York is investigating his finances, which involves claims of tax evasion, misleading business practices, and potential discrepancies in asset valuations. Meanwhile, Georgia is scrutinizing his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state, charging the former commander-in-chief with election interference.

However, the Supremacy Clause could act as a potential roadblock for the state authorities pressing charges against Trump. According to the Clause, federal law and authorities supersede their state counterparts when there is a conflict. If applied in Trump's case, his past status as the federal head of state could legally quash any state-held trials or sentences on the grounds of federal-state conflict.

While this interpretation of the Supremacy Clause could potentially change the real estate mogul's legal fate, it is important to note that this interpretation is not universally agreed upon among constitutional scholars and legal experts. Critics argue that should Trump successfully leverage this clause to evade his charges, it could set a dangerous precedent for future presidents, many of whom also possess significant state-level legal authority.

Jack Smith, a constitutional expert, expressed concern about this development. He stated that if this interpretation of the Supremacy Clause were generally accepted, it could create a 'two-tier' system of justice, where frankly anyone who was ever a federal official could assert supremacy to avoid state-level scrutiny.

As debate continues among legal circles regarding the Supremacy Clause's potential use in protecting Trump from state trials, it's clear that this issue promises far-reaching implications, not only for Trump but also for the interaction between state and federal governmental powers. It's adjudication may redefine the very nature of accountability of public officials, both present and past.