Federal Judge Reinforces Stay After Trump Asks for Sanctions on Jack Smith

Former President Donald Trump speaks at his caucus night event at the Iowa Events Center in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 15, 2024. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan reinforced the stay on the case special counsel Jack Smith is prosecuting against former President Donald Trump in Washington after defense attorneys filed a motion for an order to show why prosecutors should not be held in contempt for their actions during the stay.

“Until the mandate is returned in this case, the parties shall not file any substantive pretrial motions without first seeking leave of court, and any such request for leave shall state whether the proposed motion concerns matters involved in the appeal or is instead ancillary to it,” Judge Chutkan ordered. “In all other respects, Defendant’s Motion is Denied.”

President Trump had asked the judge to order the prosecutors to explain why they should not face penalties including sanctions and being held in contempt after they continued to litigate a case the judge had ordered be paused pending appeal. They also requested that motions filed by prosecutors during the stay be withdrawn from the court.

The judge sidestepped the penalties in the Jan. 18 order while reinforcing the stay as deadlines “held in abeyance” rather than deadlines fully vacated. She explained that since the court has taken no action on the government’s filings, there is no need for penalties at this point.

In explaining why the prosecutors will not be held in contempt, the judge took the blame for an ambiguous order.

“The Stay Order did not clearly and unambiguously prohibit the Government actions to which Defendant objects,” the judge wrote.

She clarified in the order that the stay “lifted the requirements” of filing motions by the previously agreed-upon deadlines, “but staying the deadline for a filing is not the same thing as affirmatively prohibiting it.” She wrote that her order was also ambiguous as to whether producing discovery would violate the stay.

She also clarified that the defense “is not required to carry any meaningful burdens with respect to those productions.”

The order prohibits parties from further motions filings without the permission of the court.

‘Weaponized’ Stay

The federal criminal case, in which President Trump has pleaded not guilty to obstruction and conspiracy charges related to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, was halted on Dec. 13, 2023. President Trump is currently appealing a motion to dismiss the case based on presidential immunity, which the appeals court is deliberating on an expedited schedule.

However, just days after the judge ordered a pause, the prosecutors notified the the defendant of a new discovery production. Then on Dec. 27, 2023, the prosecutors filed a significant motion to exclude several of President Trump’s defenses and pieces of evidence from trial.

Defense attorneys accused the prosecutors of “weaponizing” the stay, using the period when they knew President Trump would not respond in order to file an inflammatory motion that “spread like wildfire” in the media with headlines claiming the former president would “sow disinformation” or spread “misinformation” at his trial based on the motion.

Judge Chutkan enforced no penalties in the new order, finding it not a “major” burden while recognizing it was a “cognizable one.”

“The court reaffirms that he forfeits no arguments or rights by choosing not to respond at this time,” the judge wrote, recognizing that the defense is burdened in this case to review the motion to determine whether it is involved in President Trump’s appeal, even if he is not required to respond to it.

She cited this as rationale for preventing further court filings without the court’s permission, but did not address the negative press coverage, timing, or any effect the motion may have had on the public.

“This measure is an addition to the Stay Order, aimed to further advance its purposes, and does not reflect a determination that the Government has violated any of its clear and unambiguous terms or acted in bad faith,” the judge wrote.

Appeal Pending

An appeals panel of three judges heard oral arguments from both sides last week, and has not yet indicated when a decision will be issued.

Prosecutors have pointed out that even if the court dismisses the appeal quickly, the defense still has 45 days to request a rehearing with all judges from the court, and 90 days to appeal to higher court, thereby throwing off the original case schedule, which would have gone to trial on March 4. However, it’s unclear whether the district court would continue to stay proceedings of the case during the extended appeals process.

President Trump had filed a total of four motions to dismiss the case based on various defenses, and is likely to continue to appeal those motions in higher court, stalling the district court case and trial.