Special counsel Jack Smith has requested a three-week delay in setting deadlines for the prosecution of former President Donald Trump in connection to the January 6 events.
Smith's request follows a recent Supreme Court ruling that complicates the case, granting Trump immunity for actions taken during his presidency, according to a report by The Hill.
Smith’s request for additional time comes after District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered Smith and Trump’s legal team to jointly propose a plan for moving forward.
This extension is necessary because the Supreme Court’s decision has provided Trump with significant legal protections, particularly for his interactions with Justice Department officials. As a result, Smith's team is still working to finalize their approach in light of the new legal precedent.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has placed substantial limitations on Smith's ability to prosecute Trump for certain actions taken while he was president.
Specifically, the court ruled that Trump is immune from prosecution for conduct that was directly related to his official duties. This includes Trump’s efforts to influence the Justice Department and his discussions with former Vice President Mike Pence, which have been classified as official conduct.
To accommodate the new challenges, Smith proposed a new deadline of August 30 for both parties to weigh in on how to proceed with the case. This would replace the original deadline set for Friday and would also result in the postponement of the August 16 hearing scheduled by Judge Chutkan. Trump’s legal team has not objected to this request, indicating a shared understanding of the complications introduced by the Supreme Court’s decision.
Smith’s team is still in the process of evaluating how the Supreme Court's ruling will impact the overall case strategy. The court’s decision explicitly bars prosecutors from considering Trump’s pressure campaign at the Justice Department, where he intended to install a new attorney general to investigate his claims of election fraud. This has forced Smith to reconsider which aspects of the indictment remain viable under the new legal framework.
One of the most significant hurdles now facing Smith is the court’s ruling that the President's motives cannot be questioned in court. This raises critical questions about the admissibility of evidence related to Trump’s intentions during the events leading up to January 6. Legal observers have suggested that Smith might need to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine what portions of the indictment involve official acts versus private behavior.
In light of the complexities, some legal experts are advocating for a more transparent process. Norman Eisen, a former counsel for Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, has suggested that an evidentiary hearing could serve as a "minitrial" of Trump, allowing the public to better understand the case against him.
We should have had a verdict long ago, so the least the judicial system can do is give us a minitrial to — to some extent — air the allegations and offer a determination of whether they’re immune or not.
Beyond the complications stemming from the Supreme Court decision, Smith’s case against Trump faces additional logistical challenges. For instance, Trump’s legal team has indicated that they will be unavailable during the week of September 16, when Trump is set to face sentencing in a separate trial related to hush money payments in New York. This scheduling conflict further complicates the timeline for the January 6 case, potentially pushing back proceedings even further.
In summary, special counsel Jack Smith has requested a three-week extension to set deadlines in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump, following a Supreme Court decision that has granted Trump immunity for actions taken during his presidency. This decision has forced Smith to reconsider the charges in the indictment and has led to a delay in the case's proceedings. With additional challenges on the horizon, including a scheduling conflict for Trump's legal team, the case's timeline remains uncertain.
