Left: Donald Trump (AP Photo/Mike Stewart, File); Center: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon (U.S. Senate); Right: Special counsel Jack Smith (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
The judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago documents case on Saturday morning gave Donald Trump a series of wins by pausing several upcoming deadlines as she prepares to mull over the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark presidential immunity ruling.
In a paperless order, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon “temporarily” granted in part, and reserved ruling in part, on a Friday Trump request to file supplemental motions on long-running immunity issues in the Florida-based prosecution. The 45th president also requested a stay of all further proceedings in the case — except for advanced issues dealing with the gag order request by special counsel Jack Smith.
The order upturns defense deadlines related to expert witnesses and discovery, as well as a prosecution deadline related to filings involving Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) material. Cannon, however, says the special counsel’s office can still adhere to their old deadline and “may proceed with filing should it so elect.”
“A partial stay that pauses CIPA and other litigation is warranted based on the reasoning in [the Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling], and such a stay would be consistent with DOJ policies and practices that the Special Counsel’s Office claims to be bound by but is largely ignoring,” Trump’s attorneys argued on Friday.
The defense asked for the pause to last at least as long as interrelated immunity and appointments clause issues are resolved.
“Resolution of these threshold questions is necessary to minimize the adverse consequences to the institution of the Presidency arising from this unconstitutional investigation and prosecution,” the filing goes on. “A partial stay is also appropriate to prevent further exploitation of judicial institutions and resources by Executive Branch personnel in connection with the shameful ongoing lawfare campaign.”
Trump’s motion, hitting on a common theme used by the defendants, links “Jack Smith’s abuse of the criminal justice process to [President Joe] Biden’s desperate and failing attempts to communicate with voters prior to the 2024 presidential election.”
The since-granted request complains about “leaks” to the Washington Post that Smith reportedly plans to continue his prosecution of Trump even in the event that the former president is reelected in the upcoming November election. The motion also takes an opportunity to mention Biden’s “exceedingly weak debate performance” on June 27.
“Those leaks were a blatant violation of DOJ policy and practice, with no apparent consequences to those responsible for the malfeasance, that has obvious relevance to the Court’s Appointments Clause inquiries regarding the unchecked discretion and lack of oversight enjoyed by the Smith as he seeks to subvert the upcoming election,” the defense motion continues. “Collectively, these circumstances call for heightened caution while the Court addresses threshold issues regarding Smith’s lack of authority to drive this prosecution forward on the dangerous and reckless course he has repeatedly sought to foist upon the Court. For these reasons, a partial stay is appropriate.”
Cannon, without tipping her hand on the basis for her decision, at least agreed with the end result requested by the defendants.
While canceling the three above-mentioned deadlines, the court also ordered a new set of deadlines for the newly nascent immunity issues.
“On or before July 18, 2024, the Special Counsel shall respond to Defendant Trump’s Motion to Stay and Request for Supplemental Briefing on Presidential Immunity,” Cannon’s order reads. “Any reply is due July 21, 2024. The Court reserves ruling on the request for additional briefing pending receipt of the Special Counsel’s response and Defendants’ reply. No other deadlines are impacted by this Order.”
A proposed briefing schedule from the defense would have seen filings on the immunity issues last through early September.
Cannon, for her part, did not set any schedule at all.
“The Court reserves ruling on the request for additional briefing pending receipt of the Special Counsel’s response and Defendants’ reply,” the Saturday order reads. “No other deadlines are impacted by this Order.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]