Judge Pushes Back Schedule to Restart Trump Jan. 6 Case

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in a file photo. (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts via AP)

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan granted on Aug. 9 a request by prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s office after conferring with attorneys for former President Donald Trump to delay a status report and conference to resume litigation in the case charging the 45th president for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021.

The status report was originally due Aug. 8, but the parties instead filed a request for more time after conferring. The judge ordered the report due Aug. 30, and a status conference hearing for Sept. 5.

The case is coming out of a monthslong hiatus in the district court, and is expected to proceed with a indictment that is far narrower after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Timeline

The case was brought by the special counsel last year, and paused when Trump attorneys appealed Chutkan’s December 2023 ruling that there was no presidential immunity in the case. The appeals court upheld the district court’s decision in February, and fast-tracked Trump’s expected appeal to the Supreme Court.

On July 1, the Supreme Court set guidelines on presidential immunity, ordering lower courts to parse out the details.

On Aug. 2, the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gave the case back to the district court, ordering Chutkan to proceed with the case consistent to the high court’s order. Chutkan ordered a new status report and conference the next day, the schedules for which have now been reset.

Presidential Immunity Issues

Both the district and appeals court had ruled that Trump had no presidential immunity in the case, while Trump attorneys argued all of the actions for which he was indicted were officials acts immune to prosecution.

The high court’s decision struck a middle ground: it ruled that presidents enjoy “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for “conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority,” presumptive immunity for official acts, and no immunity for unofficial actions taken even while in office.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion, gave some guidelines and examples as to how this would apply in Trump’s case. For example, conversations with aides such as the acting head of the Justice Department, or Vice President Mike Pence, would be part of the president’s official duties, and presumptively immune.

The Supreme Court further ruled that conversations with aides could not be brought as evidence to probe whether actions were official, as this would negate the presumptive immunity.

The Supreme Court ruled that some of Trump’s speech in the indictment was official, and some not, but left it to lower courts to sort the details.

In the Aug. 8 filing, prosecutors notified the judge that they were still assessing the case in line with the new presidential immunity guidelines, conferring with other Justice Department personnel, and had not finalized its position.

The Supreme Court ruling does not directly throw out any of the four charges of obstruction and conspiracy, but affects several actions that make up these charges. The prosecutors are expected to revise the indictment.