It.'s been a while since Special Counsel Jack Smith's legal team and that of former President Donald Trump faced off in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The 2020 Election case brought by Smith against Trump has been in limbo since it went up on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the presidential immunity issue. 

Since the SCOTUS July 1 ruling on the scope of immunity, the parties have made various filings, and Smith has filed a superseding indictment, but Thursday marked the first day the parties were actually back before Judge Tanya Chutkan in person, a fact which Chutkan acknowledged as she greeted Trump attorney John Lauro.

Some light repartee right off the bat.

CHUTKAN to Lauro: You look rested.
LAURO: Life was almost meaningless.
CHUTKAN: Enjoy it while it lasts.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 5, 2024

With DC Case Back in Her Hands, Judge Tanya Chutkan Wastes No Time in Ruling on Trump Motions to Dismiss

NEW: Next Big Move in Trump 2020 Election Case Following Immunity Ruling

Jack Smith Files Superseding Indictment Against Donald Trump in 2020 Election Case

To start, Trump was formally re-arraigned on the superseding indictment. (The court had ruled ahead of Thursday that Trump himself did not need to appear in person for this.) 

The key issue before the court was the order and timing of the pleadings and determinations that will need to be made before the case can actually proceed to trial. Chutkan acknowledged that the case will not be ready for trial for months. 

In addition to sorting out the immunity issue, Trump's legal team raised the matter of Smith's appointment, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas addressed in his concurrence in the immunity ruling and Judge Aileen Cannon determined was grounds for dismissal of the Florida classified documents case brought by Smith against Trump. 

Justice Thomas Uses Presidential Immunity Case to Question the Legality
of the Whole Trump Prosecution

BREAKING: Judge Dismisses Trump Classified Documents Case

Chutkan initially expressed reservation that a motion on that basis would be timely at this point, given there was an October deadline for such. Ultimately, Chutkan agreed to let Trump's attorneys raise the issue, but they will have to persuade her that binding DC Circuit precedent rejecting their position does not foreclose it. (Based on her apparent inclination, this looks to be a tall order.) 

As to the immunity issue, Trump's team sought to delay the briefing until after the election, asserting that the prosecution's brief is likely to place damaging details into the public record just ahead of the election. Chutkan appeared unimpressed at the notion that this was a particularly sensitive time, noting that the court will not be taking the election into account. 

She did, however, note that setting a trial date would be "an exercise in futility" given all of the issues remaining to be resolved.

CHUTKAN says "it's an exercise in futility" to set a trial date because immunity is going to force another stay in the proceedings once she rules on that issue.

Hearing over.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 5, 2024

Judge Chutkan indicated that she will issue a scheduling order with the briefing schedule shortly. A couple of takeaways from Thursday's hearing: The case will not be tried before the November election (which we already pretty well knew); the immunity issue and appointments issue will not be resolved for quite some time (even if Chutkan rules on the issues fairly soon, there will inevitably be an appeal); the prosecution will likely include all manner of salacious details asserting bad behavior on the part of Trump in their brief — in all likelihood, by late September or early October.