Federal judge sets October deadlines for Trump's election interference case

By Zoe Tillman

The federal judge presiding over the 2020 election-interference prosecution against Donald Trump set a series of deadlines in the coming weeks for the next phase of the immunity fight, rejecting a more protracted schedule from the former president’s lawyers. 

At a hearing earlier on Thursday US District Judge Tanya Chutkan suggested Trump’s defense team was trying to drag out the case as he campaigns for a return to the White House in the Nov. 5 election, a claim his lawyers disputed.

Chutkan ordered prosecutors and the defense to file briefs by late October on whether the revised version of the indictment can survive a new presidential immunity test laid out by the US Supreme Court. She did not say if she would hear arguments before ruling. 

 

Thursday’s hearing in Washington was the first court appearance since prosecutors updated the indictment of the former president over allegations he tried to overturn the 2020 election. Trump wasn’t present, but his attorneys entered his plea of not guilty.

Chutkan adopted the government’s proposal for how the next phase of the immunity fight should play out. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office is due to file an opening brief on the immunity issue by Sept. 26 and Trump’s lawyers must respond by Oct. 17. Prosecutors’ final brief is due Oct. 29. 

Spokespeople for Trump and Smith’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Trump’s legal counsel had opposed letting the government to go first, arguing it would let prosecutors control what information and evidence becomes public in the weeks before the election. Responding to references by Trump’s lawyer John Lauro to this being a “sensitive time,” Chutkan said that she understood the election was approaching but stressed that it wasn’t “relevant” to her handling of the case, a point she’s made before.

During sometimes tense exchanges with Lauro, Chutkan said it seemed as though Trump’s team was trying to “affect the presentation of evidence” to avoid influencing the election. Lauro denied that, saying they wanted careful consideration of weighty issues related to the US presidency.

The case, which was initially filed last year, was paused by Chutkan for months as the US Supreme Court considered whether Trump was entitled to immunity from criminal charges. The conservative majority held in July that presidents are shielded from prosecution for official acts. 

The justices found that parts of the indictment related to Trump’s communications with US government officials were covered by that immunity. But they sent the case back to Chutkan for more litigation over how much of the rest of the case could go forward. In August, prosecutors filed an updated indictment that removed allegations the Supreme Court said were off limits, but left most if it intact.

Trump’s lawyers said in recent court papers that they plan to argue the indictment still includes immunized official conduct, especially related to his interactions with Vice President Mike Pence. On Thursday they asked to brief issues related to Pence first, contending that if those are covered by immunity, the whole indictment should be tossed out as tainted.

Prosecutor Thomas Windom proposed the government first file a brief laying out the evidence they planned to rely on and arguments for why the indictment survives the Supreme Court’s immunity test. Pressed by Chutkan, Windom said the government was prepared to finish that document in three weeks.

The defense also wants to argue that case should be dismissed because Smith’s appointment and funding were unconstitutional. Trump successfully pressed the appointment issue in another case Smith brought in Florida accusing the former president of unlawfully keeping classified documents and trying to obstruct government efforts to retrieve them.

Chutkan said on Thursday that she didn’t find US District Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling “particularly persuasive,” and noted that there is binding legal precedent in Washington upholding the lawfulness of special counsels. Trump’s opening brief on the appointment issue is due Oct. 24.

Prosecutors have appealed Cannon’s dismissal of the documents case to the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, but there’s no hearing date yet.