Special counsel Jack Smith has formally moved to dismiss the federal election subversion and classified documents mishandling cases against President-elect Donald Trump. In court filings on Monday, Smith requested the cases’ dismissal, marking a significant development in the legal battles surrounding Trump.
Trump, who had openly declared his intention to dismiss Smith upon resuming office, has continued to break with longstanding norms regarding special counsel investigations.
“The (Justice) Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith wrote regarding the election subversion case in a six-page filing to US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC. He emphasized, “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”
Judge Chutkan dismissed the case without prejudice on Monday afternoon, allowing for the possibility of future prosecution.
Smith’s investigations into Trump for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and mishandling classified documents were unprecedented, marking the first time a former U.S. president faced federal criminal charges. Despite the cases’ historic nature, the election subversion trial faced delays that prevented it from proceeding before the November election.
Smith charged Trump in Washington, DC, for efforts to overturn the 2020 election, a campaign that culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Regarding the dismissal, Smith clarified, “The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed.”
Prosecutors recently argued that a landmark Supreme Court ruling granting Trump partial presidential immunity should not affect the case. Judge Chutkan had been assessing how much of Trump’s conduct was protected by immunity when Smith filed the motion for dismissal.
In a related case in Florida, Trump faced charges for allegedly taking classified national defense documents from the White House and resisting efforts by the government to recover them. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases.
Reacting to the dismissal, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung hailed it as “a major victory for the rule of law.” He added, “The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”
Appeal Continues Against Trump Employees
While the charges against Trump have been dropped, Smith indicated in a filing with a federal appeals court that the prosecution of two of Trump’s employees, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, would continue.
Nauta and de Oliveira are accused of assisting Trump in obstructing a federal investigation into classified documents taken from the White House. Both employees have pleaded not guilty, and their case is now before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing Judge Aileen Cannon’s earlier dismissal of all charges.
John Irving, a defense attorney for de Oliveira, criticized the decision to continue the case against his client. “The special counsel’s decision to proceed in this case, even after dismissing it against President Trump, is an unsurprising tribute to the poor judgment that led to the indictment against Mr. De Oliveira in the first place,” Irving said. He further argued, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. If they prefer a slow acquittal, that’s fine with us.”
Stanley Woodward, Nauta’s lawyer, did not respond to requests for comment.
Temporary Immunity for President-Elect
Smith has emphasized that the dismissal of charges against Trump is “without prejudice,” preserving the option for future prosecution once Trump no longer enjoys presidential immunity. He described the immunity granted to a sitting president as “temporary.”
Smith revealed that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel had determined that prosecuting a sitting president is categorically barred, even for charges filed before they assume office.
“Accordingly, the Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith wrote. He added, “Although the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice.”
Judge Chutkan acknowledged the unusual nature of the situation in her ruling. She stated, “Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office.”
State Prosecutions Persist
Trump’s presidential immunity does not extend to prosecutions brought by state authorities, meaning cases in Georgia and New York will continue. However, these cases may still face complications as courts grapple with questions of immunity and the implications of Trump’s return to the White House.
In New York, Trump faces charges in a criminal hush money case. A jury earlier this year convicted him on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a payment made during the 2016 campaign to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had an affair with Trump—a claim he denies. The judge overseeing the case recently postponed Trump’s sentencing indefinitely.
In Georgia, Trump is fighting charges in a sprawling case accusing him and several allies of attempting to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.
Despite the dismissals at the federal level, these state cases ensure that Trump’s legal challenges are far from over as he prepares to take office again.
