Former President Donald Trump's federal election interference trial in Washington, D.C., will no longer begin on March 4, Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in a court order released Friday.
It is unclear when exactly the trial will now start, but the case has been on pause for nearly two months — Trump's team requested a stay on Dec. 7, and it was granted on Dec. 13 — which would mean the soonest the trial could start would likely be late April or early May.
A start date in early May could easily mean the trial won’t conclude until after the Republican National Convention, scheduled for July 15-18 in Milwaukee.
In a previous order, Chutkan reiterated that a total of seven months was "sufficient time" for Trump to prepare for trial, not including the time the case has been on pause.
Friday's ruling comes as the D.C. Circuit Court has not yet decided on whether the former president is immune from prosecution. A panel of federal appeals court judges heard oral arguments on Jan. 9, and the case is on an expedited schedule.
"The court will set a new schedule if and when the mandate is returned," said the court order from Chutkan.
A lawyer for Trump and a spokesman for the special counsel both declined to comment.
There were previous hints that the March 4 start date would not go ahead as scheduled. Chutkan was set to oversee trial proceedings in a separate case on April 2, according to court schedules, which could have overlapped with Trump's case if March 4 had still been the start date. As recently as Thursday, D.C.'s court calendar also did not list Chutkan as overseeing a case on March 4.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office has previously estimated that the prosecution would need “no longer than four to six weeks” to present its case, and potential jurors were told the trial "may last approximately three months after jury selection is completed."
The original March 4 trial start date put the high-profile case amid the Republican primary, just one day before voters in 16 states cast their ballots on Super Tuesday.
One of Trump's lawyers, D. John Sauer, has argued before the D.C. Circuit Court that a president can be prosecuted for private conduct, but he says that Trump has immunity from prosecution because of the Constitution's separation of powers principle. Sauer has said that when Trump questioned the 2020 election results and pushed for Congress to block certification, he was acting in an official capacity as president.
The president has embraced the argument in social media posts.
The federal judge overseeing former President Trump's federal 2020 election trial officially postponed its March 4 start date indefinitely while his claim of presidential immunity remains on appeal.
Why it matters: It's now likely that the first of Trump's four criminal trials will be over New York's charges related to 2016 hush money payments, which is slated for March 25.
- Judge Tanya Chutkan did not set a new date.
- The expected delay in the federal 2020 election case could also push the trial closer to the November elections and could set back others, including the trial over classified documents that's set for May 20.
Catch up fast: The Jan. 6 case was paused in December while Trump appealed a lower-court's rejection of his immunity claims.
- Special prosecutor Jack Smith attempted to prevent the delay by asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether Trump is protected by presidential immunity.
- It rejected the request, meaning Trump's appeal must first get through the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. before the Supreme Court can decide if it will take up the case.
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Appeals Court heard oral arguments over the claim in early January.
- The judges appeared skeptical of the immunity argument but have yet to make a ruling.
Between the lines: Trump's lawyers have made two specific arguments in support of presidential immunity.
- They have claimed that Trump could not face criminal prosecution because he was not first convicted in the Senate's impeachment trial over his actions around the 2020 election.
- They have also said he cannot face charges because his actions around that time were performed within the "outer perimeter" of the president's official duties. They cited the 1982 Supreme Court case, Nixon
- The experts said it would allow impeachable officials to commit crimes and not expect punishment if either their congressional allies don't hold them accountable or if they hide the crime until they leave office and can no longer be impeached.
- Some of Trump's fellow Republicans said directly after the Senate trial that he was not immune from the criminal justice system or civil litigation over his actions.
The move opens the door for a separate prosecution in New York, charging Trump in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor, to proceed first. That case has long been seen as arguably the least legally perilous of the four indictments Trump faces, with the alleged misconduct less grave than accusations of mishandling classified documents or plotting to subvert a presidential election.
The postponement in Washington comes as a federal appeals court has yet to resolve a pending appeal from Trump arguing that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took in the White House. It is not clear when the three-judge panel might rule, but a ruling in favor of prosecutors that permits the case to move forward is expected to be appealed by the Trump team, likely resulting in additional delays.
For both sides, timing is of the essence. Trump, who faces four indictments and 91 felony counts, is looking to push his criminal cases back as he enjoys front-runner status in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Smith's team, meanwhile, is hoping to be able to prosecute Trump this year before the November election. If Trump is elected while the case is pending, he could presumably order the Justice Department to drop it and could potentially try to seek a pardon for himself.
The Washington case had been expected to take place first, but it has been delayed for weeks by Trump's appeal on grounds that he is shielded from prosecution — a claim that has been vigorously disputed by Smith's team. The appeals court heard arguments on Jan. 9 and appeared skeptical of a Trump lawyer's position. Though the court has said it intended to work quickly, it has not yet issued a ruling.
"A president of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him/her to properly function,” Trump said in a post to Truth Social in January.
The elimination of the March 4 start date increases the chances that Trump's New York case involving allegations of hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels will be the former president's next trial. That case is currently set to start on March 25.
.jpeg)
0 Comments