Judge Lays Out New Schedule in Trump Federal Election Case, Allows DOJ to

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

On the issue of how to schedule the case ahead of the trial, Chutkan ended up largely siding with special counsel Jack Smith’s positions.

WASHINGTON—District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued an order on Sept. 5 outlining a series of deadlines for former President Donald Trump’s federal election interference case.

Her order allows Special Counsel Jack Smith to release evidence in the case before the November election and seemed to favor his approach of concurrently various issues rather than a more incremental approach advanced by Trump’s attorneys.

More specifically, she required a brief from DOJ on presidential immunity by the end of the day on Sept. 26. Trump, meanwhile, is expected to file a renewed motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity by Oct. 17.

It requires DOJ to complete all mandatory evidentiary disclosures by September 10, five days after her order and the status conference where she discussed potential changes with the two parties.

The current schedule runs through Nov. 7 with briefing surrounding an expected motion to dismiss that challenges the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment. Chutkan also reopened a motion to dismiss based on statutory grounds and set up deadlines for briefing on that issue from Oct. 3 through Oct. 17.

Timing

The schedule came after she and Trump attorney John Lauro discussed the timing of pre-trial proceedings and the 2024 presidential election.

Chutkan told Lauro that the court has said the timing of the election was not relevant and that she wouldn’t consider that factor in scheduling pre-trial proceedings.

“This case has been pending for over a year,” Chutkan said. The judge said that the court was “hardly sprinting” towards the finish line.

“We can’t even really contemplate a trial date because of the looming appellate issues,” she said before adding there needs to be some “forward motion” in this case.

Trump is expected to withdraw the prosecution if he wins in November. As the special counsel noted, at least one appeal is immunity-related appeal is anticipated. The issue could then return to the Supreme Court before any potential trial.

It’s unclear when pre-trial litigation over immunity will end but Chutkan set the last briefing deadline on that issue for Oct. 29. “After briefing, the court will determine whether further proceedings
are necessary,” her order read.

Her schedule did not yet include an evidentiary hearing, which was something attorneys had speculated the special counsel might use to showcase potentially embarrassing details about Trump before the election.

Immunity

Chutkan’s schedule was a major step for Trump’s case, which started around the same time in 2023 and has been stalled due to an appeal related to presidential immunity.

Much of the discussion during the Sept. 5 status conference centered on how the court would apply the Supreme Court’s opinion in Trump v. United States, which established multiple levels of criminal immunity for presidents.

Thomas Windom, an attorney with the special counsel’s office, asked Chutkan to allow DOJ to file a comprehensive brief presidential immunity. He aimed to ensure that the case would see only one appeal on immunity before the start of the trial.

Lauro saw the special counsel’s approach as unfair and favored a more incremental approach that would require Chutkan to first determine whether the superseding indictment, filed by Smith on Aug. 30, was legal based on Trump v. United States.

Chutkan worried that doing so would risk reversal from a higher court but also said that she risked reversal no matter what she did.

Lauro and Chutkan clashed during the status conference while discussing how the Supreme Court had handled the special counsel’s allegations about Trump’s interactions with former Vice President Mike Pence.

Lauro thought that issue could prompt Chutkan to dismiss the indictment on legal grounds while she indicated an interest in reviewing some of the evidence surrounding those interactions concurrently with questions of law.

This is breaking and will be updated.