Former President Donald Trump’s legal team and federal prosecutors faced off in court on Thursday, marking a significant moment in the ongoing legal battle over his January 6th-related criminal prosecution. The case had been on hold for months as Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that presidential immunity protected him from prosecution. The Supreme Court’s ruling in July left it to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to decide the extent of Trump’s immunity, leading to Thursday’s hearing—the first in nearly a year where both sides returned to her courtroom.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Chutkan stated she would issue an order later that day outlining the case’s next steps. However, she refrained from setting a final trial date, suggesting it would be an “exercise in futility” given the uncertain circumstances surrounding the case, including Trump’s ongoing appeal and the upcoming presidential election.
Who Should Go First?
The proceedings started with Trump’s legal team formally entering a not-guilty plea to the new version of his indictment. Much of the hearing was then consumed by the question of which side should initiate further arguments on the Supreme Court’s ruling about presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court had clarified that core presidential actions were immune, with other official acts being presumptively immune, while private conduct was not protected. Now, Judge Chutkan must decide which parts of Trump’s conduct fall into each category.
Prosecutor Thomas Windom, representing special counsel Jack Smith’s team, suggested that the prosecution should go first in presenting arguments to defend the indictment. Windom proposed, “We would set forth for the court why we believe the conduct in the brief is private in nature and therefore not subject to immunity.”
However, Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, argued that it would be prejudicial to allow the prosecution to start. He insisted that Trump’s legal team should make the first move, suggesting they should file a motion to dismiss the new charges in the superseding indictment—a move that could halt the case entirely. Lauro stated, “We want an orderly process that does honor to the Supreme Court ruling,” while pointing out that it was “a very sensitive time in our nation’s history.”
Judge Chutkan reacted with a slight, soft “oh” at one point during Lauro’s comments and swiveled her chair, suggesting that Lauro might be thinking about the upcoming presidential election. She speculated that Trump’s team wanted to avoid the public release of evidence before Election Day—a notion Lauro denied. Chutkan responded firmly, “This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule. That’s nothing I’m going to consider.”
The Pence Factor
One key issue in Trump’s indictment revolves around the pressure campaign he allegedly waged against then-Vice President Mike Pence. Trump’s attorney, Lauro, contended that Trump’s conversations with Pence should be protected under the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling. Lauro emphasized his stance, saying, “I’m an originalist,” and took the ruling “literally.”
Judge Chutkan, however, swiftly corrected him, asserting that the Supreme Court did not give blanket immunity to Trump for his communications with Pence. She reminded Lauro that the justices left it to her to determine the application of immunity in this case. “They sent it back to me to figure that one out,” she said.
Lauro argued that the Pence-related allegations are a “gateway legal issue,” meaning that if Trump’s efforts to pressure Pence to certify fake electors are deemed immune, it could unravel the entire indictment. However, prosecutor Windom pointed out that the defense seemed to be selectively interpreting the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying the court did not suggest the indictment would disappear even if Trump’s conversations with Pence were deemed immune.
Evidence in Focus
The hearing also touched on how evidence would be handled moving forward. Windom clarified that the government would not push for a so-called minitrial, which would include live witness testimony. Instead, they were prepared to present their case on paper, offering a factual basis that could include grand jury transcripts, documents, and exhibits that had not yet been made public.
Lauro, in response, expressed that Trump’s team would need time to thoroughly review the discovery materials, suggesting that the government had not yet turned over all the evidence they were entitled to. Prosecutors, however, dismissed this claim, with Windom stating, “You can set a deadline for today,” and adding that the government had already fulfilled its discovery obligations.
Challenge to Special Counsel’s Authority
Trump’s legal team also plans to file a motion challenging the legality of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel, echoing a strategy they successfully employed in Trump’s Florida-based classified documents case. In that case, Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Smith’s appointment was unlawful, although Smith has since appealed the decision.
This move has surprised some legal experts, as it challenges 50 years of legal precedent regarding special counsel appointments. Lauro pointed to a concurring opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, which raised questions about special counsel authority. Lauro claimed Thomas “in effect directed us” to pursue this argument.
However, Judge Chutkan indicated she might not view the argument favorably, noting that she didn’t find Cannon’s ruling persuasive. “You want me to go against binding circuit precedence?” she asked, referring to Thomas’s remarks as “dicta in a concurrence,” which means they were merely passing comments and not binding.
At one point during this discussion, Smith was seen smiling and laughing, while Lauro continued to outline his legal strategy, also signaling plans to cite a recent Supreme Court ruling that limited the use of obstruction charges against January 6 defendants—a charge that Trump himself faces.
Setting a Trial Date?
Towards the end of the hearing, Chutkan declined to set a trial date for Trump’s case, predicting further delays as Trump’s legal team is expected to file more appeals. She noted that any decision she made would likely be appealed, which would almost certainly prolong the case.
Chutkan acknowledged that the upcoming 2024 presidential election could complicate the case’s timeline, especially if Trump wins the election and his Justice Department moves to dismiss the charges against him. Nevertheless, she reiterated that the election itself is “not relevant” to the court’s proceedings and will not influence her decisions.
Reunion in the Courtroom
Thursday’s hearing also marked a rare reunion between Trump’s legal team and prosecutors, with both sides returning to Chutkan’s courtroom for the first time in nearly a year. Jack Smith attended the hearing, sitting in the front row of the courtroom gallery, though Trump was absent, as the judge had accepted his waiver for not appearing.
Trump’s attorneys have had several tense exchanges with Chutkan in the past, even asking for her recusal. Despite these disagreements, the hearing on Thursday also had its lighter moments. When Chutkan entered the courtroom, she joked, “You look rested, Mr. Lauro,” to which Lauro humorously responded, “Life was almost meaningless without seeing you.”
However, the tension soon returned as Chutkan expressed skepticism about many of Lauro’s arguments, at one point telling him, “I don’t need any more rhetoric on how serious and grave this is.” Lauro replied, “It’s not rhetoric, it’s called legal argument.”
The court proceedings continue as both sides brace for what promises to be a long and contentious legal battle.
