Judge Overseeing Election Case Assigned to Second Trump Case

Former President Donald Trump arrives to deliver remarks to the Georgia state GOP convention at the Columbus Convention and Trade Center in Columbus, Ga., on June 10, 2023. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case special counsel Jack Smith is prosecuting against former President Donald Trump, was randomly reassigned another case on Oct. 6, also against the former president.

The judge known for harsh Jan. 6-related sentencings now presides over both a criminal and civil case against the former president. He had previously filed a motion for her to recuse herself from his case, but she ruled it unnecessary.

The civil suit was brought by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, accusing President Trump, his campaign, and the Republican National Committee of disenfranchising black voters.

Both cases accuse President Trump of wrongdoing in his actions to challenge the 2020 election results. The civil case alleges the defendants violated the Voting Rights Act in Michigan, and asks the court to prevent them from doing so in the future.

Michigan Voters

The petition was originally brought forth on Nov. 20, 2020, the same month as the general election, and at the time President Trump’s campaign was still challenging the Michigan results in court.

On Nov. 28, 2022, a trial court decided that President Trump was not shielded by the absolute immunity that shielded the outer perimeters of a president’s duties, and the case was allowed to proceed.

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss in response to the plaintiffs’ amendments to the suit to keep it going past the 2020 election.

In their latest responses, the petitioners argue that the motions to dismiss are “dangerous” and showed intention to continue to interfere in elections. In the January filing, they alleged coercion, criminal intent, and conspiracy on the part of President Trump and his campaign, mirroring arguments that have now been brought up in state and federal criminal cases against him.

“Plaintiffs bring suit against former President Trump for actions he took in his personal capacity,” the filing reads. “The conduct at issue in this lawsuit does not relate to official executive action, former President Trump’s arguments that the statutes at issue do not apply to him fail.”

The Trump campaign in turn argued that this petition intrudes upon First Amendment rights and that the petitioners “misconstrue” the intentions and actions they are suing for.

“Plaintiffs seek to bolster their true threats argument by claiming that defendants’ speech is outside protection of the First Amendment because it was false,” the response reads, adding that they relied on social media posts and speeches, but failed to show evidence of statutes violated.

Judge Chutkan

President Trump’s legal team had previously asked Judge Chutkan, an appointee of  former President Barack Obama, to step down from the criminal case. They pointed to statements she made in sentencing others in Jan. 6-related cases where she referenced President Trump, but not by name.

They argued that she had pre-judged their client and thus could not give an impartial trial, and furthermore had already broken the appearance of neutrality, which may inspire doubt in the court system.

The prosecutors had responded that there was no reason for the judge to step down, because the statements in question were made during official court proceedings, she never said that she thought President Trump was guilty specifically, and she had not given other defendants lighter sentences because they blamed President Trump.

The judge ultimately ruled against the motion to recuse, echoing the prosecutors’ arguments.

President Trump has referenced the judge several times on social media, accusing her of bias against him.

But just this week, the judge issued a gag order that would prevent him from speaking about (“target”) any court staff, prosecutors, and potential witnesses. This would presumably prevent him from referencing the judge in future posts.

The prosecutors brought the motion for a gag order forward arguing that President Trump’s influence may sway jurors in Washington, D.C., in his favor, asking the court to restrict what he can say. The original order targeted “disparaging” and “inflammatory” comments, rather than subjects of the comments.

The judge stopped short of preventing President Trump from saying he believes the case is politically motivated; she clarified in her order that he is still allowed to criticize President Joe Biden and his administration, and the government generally, including the Department of Justice.

The prosecutors are also prohibited from targeting the defense attorneys and their staff in the new order, but it stops short of requiring them not to attack the defendant, President Trump, in statements, which special counsel Jack Smith has done.

President Trump has filed a notice that he will appeal the gag order.

“I’ll be the only politician in history that runs with a gag order where I’m not allowed to criticize people. Can you imagine this?” he said at a speech in Iowa shortly after a hearing during which the judge said she would issue the order. “We’ll appeal it, and we’ll see. But it’s so unconstitutional. The good thing is we have so much support it’s incredible.”