U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has set crucial deadlines for determining whether former President Donald Trump is immune from charges related to an alleged election conspiracy.
USA Today reported that the issue of immunity, which centers on Trump's actions after the 2020 election, could have significant implications for both the trial and the former president's upcoming bid for reelection in November.
The timeline laid out by Judge Chutkan will govern how and when Trump’s immunity arguments are addressed before the case goes to trial.
This decision comes as prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith's office and Trump's defense team prepare to argue whether the former president’s conduct is protected by presidential immunity.
The question of Trump’s immunity arises from his actions following the 2020 election, in which he allegedly sought to overturn the results.
Prosecutors argue that his attempts were not part of his official duties as president and are therefore not protected by immunity. On the other hand, Trump's defense maintains that the indictment should be dismissed entirely, claiming the actions in question were official acts carried out during his presidency.
Judge Chutkan has outlined several key deadlines to address these issues, beginning with a September 10 deadline for prosecutors to share evidence with Trump’s defense team. By September 19, Trump’s attorneys are required to request any additional evidence they believe is necessary. The immunity argument itself is scheduled for written debate, with the prosecution’s argument due on September 26.
Trump’s defense team, led by attorney John Lauro, has raised multiple objections to the proceedings. Lauro has argued that other legal disputes, such as the disclosure of evidence, should be resolved before immunity is considered.
He also contends that Vice President Mike Pence's communications with Trump during the 2020 election certification process should lead to the dismissal of the indictment.
Lauro argued in court that the indictment is "illegitimate from the get-go," a stance that has added another layer of complexity to an already contentious legal battle. He believes that addressing the immunity question before other disputes are settled could unfairly prejudice Trump’s case.
Judge Chutkan, however, remained firm in her position, stating that the court would not consider the electoral schedule when setting deadlines. “This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule,” she remarked, adding, “We can all walk and chew gum at the same time.”
In addition to the immunity debate, Judge Chutkan has set specific dates for other key legal motions.
By October 3, Trump’s team is expected to file a motion to dismiss the case based on what they argue are vague legal statutes. Another important deadline comes on October 24, when Trump’s lawyers plan to challenge the legitimacy of special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment.
Prosecutors are required to respond to these motions by the end of October, with their reply on the immunity question due on October 29. By October 31, the government will also respond to Trump’s claims about Smith’s appointment.
Despite the deadlines set by the court, the debate over Trump’s immunity is likely to prolong the proceedings. Prosecutor Thomas Windom explained that addressing the immunity question early on would benefit the defense by allowing them to better understand the evidence against Trump. However, Lauro countered that this approach could prejudice the case, arguing that there are "no special rules for the special counsel."
Windom also noted that Trump’s presumed immunity, which the Supreme Court has acknowledged for official presidential acts, could be rebutted in this case since the actions under scrutiny allegedly fall outside the scope of his duties as president. This back-and-forth is likely to be a focal point of the trial, especially given its potential to delay proceedings beyond the November election.
Throughout the hearing, Judge Chutkan repeatedly emphasized that the electoral calendar would not influence her decision-making. "We're hardly sprinting for the finish line here," she quipped during the hearing, suggesting that the court would take its time in considering the legal arguments.
Lauro, in his arguments, reiterated that the entire indictment is unlawful and that Trump’s legal team will challenge every aspect of the prosecution’s case. “They’re going to lose that bet, one way or another,” Lauro said.
