Donald Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts in the New York hush money case—but there’s a lengthy appeals process ahead. And what ever happened to the other three cases against him—Jack Smith’s federal election interference and classified documents cases, and Fani Willis’ Georgia election interference case? All three have hit various roadblocks. To make it easier to follow all of Trump’s ongoing legal entanglements, each Monday, we’ll keep you updated on the latest developments in Keeping Up With the Trump Trials.
While the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision created setbacks for both of Jack Smith’s cases against Donald Trump, the special counsel has been fighting to keep both cases alive—and Trump’s defense team has been fighting him right back. Last week, Trump’s defense filed more court documents seeking to dismiss the election interference case and stall the classified documents appeals process.
Trump Pushes to Dismiss the Jan. 6 Case
In a court filing that was meant to request more evidentiary information from special counsel Jack Smith, the former president’s attorneys instead argued, for the second time in recent weeks, that the federal election interference case “should be dismissed. Promptly.”
John Lauro and Todd Blanche, Trump’s defense attorneys, detailed in a new court filing why they believe Smith’s case should be dismissed, starting with a duty to “protect the integrity of the Presidency and the upcoming election.” However, two weeks ago at a court hearing in Washington, when Trump’s attorneys first argued that this case should not move forward until December due to the presidential election, Judge Tanya Chutkan was clear that that would not factor into her considerations. ”I am definitely not getting drawn into electoral disputes. … That’s not something I’m going to consider.”
Yet, in their latest court filing, Lauro and Blanche chose to repeat many of the same arguments from that court hearing. They accuse Smith of denying “the existence of Presidential immunity,” though the special counsel filed a new superseding indictment because of the Supreme Court’s decision that presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for “official” actions taken while in the White House. In Trump’s case, that means his communications with his Justice Department and former Vice President Mike Pence may be off-limits for consideration as evidence. In the new indictment, Smith eliminated any mention of conversations Trump had with Pence on Jan. 6, only mentioning the vice president’s role as president of the Senate.
However, Trump’s attorneys argued the new indictment is still unacceptable, and that Smith’s investigation, which began in 2022, is now tainted because it could not possibly have accounted for SCOTUS’ decision, particularly as evidence was collected. “The Special Counsel’s Office conducted its initial, disputed discovery review in this case at a time when the Office wholly denied the existence of Presidential immunity,” they wrote.
In addition to arguing this case should be dismissed, Lauro and Blanche also want Chutkan to revisit the case schedule she ordered and slow the pace down, just days before Smith is expected to submit a major court filing on Sept. 26 that will lay out all the evidence the special counsel intends to use to prove his charges against Trump. Typically, motions filed by the prosecution or defense have page limits, but Smith requested to go over it, arguing that in order to adhere to the Supreme Court’s directive—judges must conduct a “necessarily factbound” analysis to determine which of Trump’s acts should be considered official or unofficial—he needs more space to make his case. (He has said it won’t go over 180 pages.)
Smith also flagged that he intends to include “a substantial amount of sensitive material” in his motion. Once submitted, it will be Smith’s first documented attempt to prove why he believes Trump’s actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election are not protected acts.
A Plea for More Time in the Classified Documents Case Appeal
The former president’s attorneys are also scrambling for more time to defend Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the federal government’s classified documents case, requesting a 30-day extension to respond to special counsel Jack Smith’s appeal.
Back in July, Cannon dismissed Smith’s classified documents case, declaring that the attorney general violated the Constitution’s appointments clause when naming Smith as special counsel, and therefore Smith cannot legally prosecute this case. Smith appealed Cannon’s decision, arguing that Cannon “misconstrued” that appointments clause. He pointed to the Watergate scandal and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Nixon, which established that attorneys general do have the statutory authority to assign special counsels.
Trump’s defense team has until Sept. 26 to respond to Smith’s appeal, but has asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta for a 30-day extension, since they are simultaneously working to meet deadlines related to Smith’s election interference case.
Trump’s lawyers want until Oct. 25 to respond to Smith’s appeal, which is only about 10 days before the presidential election. Once that response is submitted, the appeals court will set a date for oral arguments and a final decision will be made on whether or not Cannon’s decision to dismiss was lawful. Regardless of how the appeals court rules, if Trump wins the election, he’s expected to instruct his Justice Department to dismiss Smith’s cases against him.
If Trump loses in November, either Smith or Trump will likely appeal the 11th Circuit’s decision and the question of the special counsel’s appointment will be kicked up to the Supreme Court.
