Proceedings in Trump’s election interference case to resume after delay

After several months of delays, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a pivotal hearing that may influence the direction of former President Donald Trump’s case related to election interference.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan will examine contrasting proposals for how the matter should proceed after the Supreme Court’s recent decision that extended broad immunity for actions taken by presidents while in office.

This hearing represents the first occasion since last fall that attorneys for Trump and special counsel Jack Smith will be present in Chutkan’s courtroom. Trump’s legal team had successfully postponed the trial, which was initially scheduled for March, by appealing for presidential immunity to the Supreme Court. This appeal resulted in a significant shift in the legal environment surrounding Trump’s case.

In a revised indictment filed just last week, Smith adjusted the charges against Trump by eliminating allegations associated with his official duties. The Supreme Court’s ruling implies these actions could be exempt from prosecution. Despite the adjustments, four criminal charges from the original indictment remain intact.

The new indictment specifies that while Trump had no official role in the certification process, he had a personal interest as a candidate in being declared the election winner.

Although Trump is not expected to attend the hearing in person, he has instructed his legal team to enter a plea of not guilty on his behalf.

Changes made to clarify Trump’s actions as private rather than official helped reshape the narrative. Prosecutors also withdrew the previously essential allegation that Trump attempted to utilize the Department of Justice to support his unfounded claims about election fraud. Furthermore, they omitted specific instances regarding Trump’s actions during the Capitol riot on January 6, where he allegedly failed to call off the rioters, as well as instances in which advisers attempted to correct him on his erroneous claims.

In a joint filing submitted to Judge Chutkan last week, prosecutors asserted that the alterations to the indictment ensure that the Supreme Court’s protections for official acts do not extend to the new case. They emphasized the importance of distinguishing Trump’s “private electioneering activity” from “official action.”

Defense attorneys countered this position, arguing that prosecutors have mistakenly included allegations that should be protected under presidential immunity and that they misapplied a federal obstruction statute.

The defense wrote, “We believe, and expect to demonstrate, that this case must end as a matter of law.”

While the Supreme Court’s ruling broadly enhanced presidential immunity, granting absolute protections for core presidential functions and a presumption of immunity for other official acts, the Court did not completely apply this decision to the specifics of Trump’s indictment. Instead, it placed the responsibility on Judge Chutkan to conduct a detailed “fact-specific analysis” to determine whether Trump’s conduct was official or personal.

Contentions between the prosecution and defense arose regarding how Chutkan should navigate the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling. Smith urged Chutkan to first tackle the immunity issue via written briefs, as noted in Friday’s joint filing.

Conversely, the defense requested that Chutkan first consider whether the case should be dismissed on grounds that Smith was appointed illegally, paralleling arguments that led a federal judge in Florida to dismiss the former president’s classified documents case. This could potentially extend the case’s timeline into the upcoming year.

The hearing scheduled for Thursday could provide initial insights into how Judge Chutkan intends to move forward with this long-postponed case ahead of the November election and how she will apply the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling.

In an address to reporters, Attorney General Merrick Garland supported Smith’s decision to issue a superseding indictment just months from the election, expressing confidence that the special counsel adhered to Department of Justice policies regarding electoral matters.

Garland stated, “I stand by the actions of the special counsel. The superseding indictment reflects an attempt to respond to the Supreme Court’s directives on how to carry out a new indictment in an ongoing case.”

Trump, for his part, continues to defend his actions aimed at overturning the election results, stating, “Whoever heard of being indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it?”