Judge in Trump’s 2020 election case supports special counsel’s next steps

Washington — The federal judge overseeing the case involving former President Donald Trump, related to actions taken after the 2020 election, has established the next steps in the legal proceedings. This comes after a Supreme Court decision asserted that Trump holds immunity for acts conducted during his official capacity in the Oval Office.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued an order largely aligning with a proposed schedule from special counsel Jack Smith, shortly after a meeting was held in her courtroom. Trump faces four counts tied to his purported attempts to reverse the election outcome, including conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Trump once again pleaded not guilty, although he waived his appearance before the court on this occasion.

The judge’s order dismissed the timeline suggested by Trump’s legal team, which sought to prolong pretrial activities until the spring or fall of 2025—far beyond the upcoming November presidential elections.

Smith and his prosecution team had urged that discussions regarding immunity should happen in conjunction with other motions and issues anticipated to arise from Trump’s legal representatives.

According to Chutkan’s directive, federal prosecutors must provide all necessary evidence to Trump’s attorneys by September 10, and Smith’s team has until September 26 to submit their opening brief regarding the presidential immunity arguments. During the court session, Smith indicated that this filing would include new details not present in the original indictment, thus allowing for public disclosure of this material prior to the election.

The judge also set October 17 as the deadline for Trump’s team to respond to the special counsel’s points and to present their request for dismissal of the indictment based on immunity claims. The government will have until October 29 to respond to this request.

In her two-page order, Chutkan noted that after the submissions concerning immunity issues, she will decide if more proceedings are necessary.

Additionally, Trump’s legal team must file by September 19 any specific evidence concerning presidential immunity that they believe has been improperly withheld by the prosecution.

The order stipulates that Trump can request the court’s permission by October 24 to file a motion dismissing the case, arguing that Smith’s appointment and his funding are unconstitutional. The special counsel is given until October 31 to contest this request.

This hearing resumed amidst a backdrop of events stretching back months following the Supreme Court ruling which affirmed that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity concerning official duties falling under their “core constitutional powers,” and a presumption of immunity exists for official actions that are not part of their “exclusive authority.” However, personal actions do not receive such protection.

The high court returned the case to Chutkan for further deliberations. During the hearing, Trump’s legal team and Smith’s prosecutors debated how to interpret and apply the Supreme Court’s ruling in relation to Trump’s alleged actions during and following the 2020 election. Smith’s team had recently revised the indictment to align with the ruling regarding Trump’s immunity.

Discussions during the hearing touched on whether certain conduct mentioned in the new indictment, specifically Trump’s conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence after the election, were protected under presidential immunity. Trump’s lawyer argued that these conversations should be considered as official acts, thus exempt from prosecution.

Chutkan indicated that while these discussions could be subject to a different form of immunity, whether they fell outside Trump’s official duties remains a matter for her to adjudicate.

At the same time, she emphasized that the proximity of the upcoming election has no relevance on how the case progresses. Trump, now the Republican nominee, is aiming to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris to return to the White House.

Chutkan firmly stated, “The electoral process … is not relevant here,” dismissing suggestions that election timelines should influence her judicial process. Trump’s attorney faced pushback from Chutkan for emphasizing the potential impact of the trial on the electoral landscape, with her noting, “It strikes me that what you’re trying to do is affect the presentation of evidence in this case so as not to impinge on an election.”

The hearing and subsequent order underlined that a trial will not occur before the November elections. Chutkan expressed that any rulings made in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity interpretation will likely be subject to appeal, causing further delays in the proceedings.

According to her, discussions around setting a trial date would be futile at this stage.