Trump’s March 4 trial date is no longer listed on the Federal Election Case docket

Paresh Jadhav

11 months ago

A New York judge has put off President Trump’s March 4 trial in the election interference case, which could have far-reaching ramifications should the Supreme Court take up this issue.

District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan suspended proceedings to give an appeals court time to rule on Donald Trump’s immunity claim from prosecution.

Table of Contents

Toggle

Judge Chutkan’s Decision

At Monday’s hearing, Trump attorney John Lauro rose up against the trial date as “violating [defendant’s] right to due process and effective assistance of counsel,” as per their reasoning.

Chutkan dismissed this argument, noting that prosecutors have already spent two years conducting their investigation and preparing for trial. She further pointed out her previous rulings had rejected defense team claims that former President should be exempted from prosecution due to actions undertaken while fulfilling his responsibilities as leader.

She then temporarily suspended any further proceedings that would move towards trial and imposed additional burdens on Trump’s defense team, though she left open the possibility that her decision may be reversed if either D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules against defense team or Trump pursues Supreme Court appeal, something Trump has promised he will do. Regardless, however, delays should be expected as it winds through courts.

Smith’s Response

Smith submitted a Dec. 20 motion requesting the Supreme Court take action and determine whether President Trump is immune from prosecution while serving. This move represents an impressive legal strategy and could prove decisive.

The Supreme Court usually grants or denies requests from litigants to intervene before an appeals court rules on them, so its justices will soon review whether Smith should ask them to assist with his dispute resolution request.

This move could put the trial on hold until justices decide if they want to take on the case or not. With prosecutors already being behind in their preparations for trial preparations, any additional delays could prove disastrous. Justices may need to weigh in on whether a former president can be charged with obstruction before taking up this matter.

Trump’s Response

As part of their decision, Trump’s lawyers requested the trial commence in April 2026 – more than one year after the next presidential election. By moving it away from state court, prosecutors will gain more time to analyze 11 million pages received from Trump’s legal team, giving prosecutors ample time to review documents received and read through them all before beginning trial preparations.

The former President’s legal team argued that his conduct in New York breached federal law and therefore must be brought before federal courts, given its connection with his official duties as President. Furthermore, they noted the Constitution’s insurrectionist clause (which prohibits individuals engaging in rebellion from holding office) which they said applied directly to him.

Judge Juan Manuel Merchan will rule on Trump’s request at a hybrid conference between lawyers and Trump via video conference, setting a date for voir dire (the process by which attorneys question potential jurors in order to select an impartial panel).

Conclusions

With no trial date set in Washington, this could potentially push back trial until after Trump files his petition for Supreme Court review and adjourns to that court – possibly until 2024 or even further out.

At the hearing, Chutkan explained her desire to provide sufficient time for preparation of defense attorneys and rejected Smith’s attempt to bypass normal appeals processes and ask the Supreme Court for clarification on immunity questions.

Trial dates in Washington would have come just days or weeks before New York trial dates on charges against former president Clinton for paying hush money to porn stars and just before Super Tuesday kicked off Republican primary season. Prosecutors assert they have an intensely strong interest in having proceedings move quickly because evidence in this case has already become public knowledge; delays risk witnesses becoming unavailable and memories fading over time.