Left: Donald Trump (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, POOL). Right: U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.)
The judge overseeing the beleaguered Jan. 6 election subversion case against former President Donald Trump has set a new and upcoming hearing date in an effort to get proceedings back on track.
The court appears inclined to move forward apace in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that created the sweeping doctrine of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. In the opinion stylized as Trump v. United States, the 6-3 majority likely circumscribed at least some of the prosecution’s efforts.
“The court has regained jurisdiction over this case,” U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in a one-page order on Saturday.
In the order, the Barack Obama-appointed judge denied a defense motion to dismiss on statutory grounds filed in October 2023.
The court did not opine whatsoever on the denial and did so “without prejudice,” meaning Trump can re-litigate the issue later on.
“Defendant may file a renewed motion once all issues of immunity have been resolved,” Chutkan explained.
Resolving those issues, however, is likely to be a time-consuming enterprise for both sides in the case — and the court itself.
More Law&Crime coverage: Manhattan DA blasts Trump’s latest effort to boot judge from hush-money case
While the opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts absolutely prohibited the prosecution of a president for official acts within “his core constitutional powers,” immunity was also conferred on a president’s “remaining official actions.” And, for those non-core acts, Roberts noted, a lesser form of presumptive immunity (which could, in theory, be overcome by a legal argument) might be sufficient.
Perhaps tellingly, the question was left open.
The opinion also noted that there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Teasing out what in the indictment might qualify as a core official act, an otherwise official act, or a non-official act — and what kind of immunity is sufficient to advance the goal of protecting the presidency in each instance — will decidedly be subject to hot dispute.
“Certain allegations — such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General — are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” the high court’s opinion reads. “Other allegations — such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public — present more difficult questions. Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.”
The D.C. Court of Appeals returned the case to the district court on Friday.
More Law&Crime coverage: The Trump Docket: A case Trump wants to forget is back in his face
In anticipation of the wide-ranging, wholesale, long-and-winding legal wrangling to come, Chutkan set a status conference for Aug. 16.
While that date is fast approaching, there is a zero percent chance the matter will go to trial before the 2024 presidential election.
Still, if the previous pre-trial hearings in the case were any indicator, Chutkan would not endeavor to move slowly in deciding the issues.
After the indictment was filed last August and Trump entered his not-guilty plea, Chutkan indicated she was inclined to keep the process streamlined. As days turned into weeks, Trump’s attorneys dug in their heels and, as Law&Crime reported, often argued they were overwhelmed with pretrial discovery, issues with classified materials, obtaining security clearance to review those materials and more.
Chutkan kept up the tempo, encouraging all parties to prepare for a March 2024 trial so the matter could be resolved before the general election. The trial date was ultimately vacated in February.
Brandi Buchman contributed to this report.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
