The federal Judge Tanya Chutkan, charged with the oversight of ex-president Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case, dismissed a plea on Thursday to hold lead prosecutor, Special Counsel Jack Smith, in contempt. This came when Trump contested Smith’s continued submission of court documents after Chutkan had issued a stay on further proceedings, awaiting decisions on Trump’s claims of “absolute” immunity from the criminal charges.
In a January 4 filing, Trump requested the court to hold Smith and his team in contempt for violating the court’s issued stay. Even with the stay in place, Smith’s team has submitted a couple of documents regarding motions in limine and discovery.
Trump’s filing included accusations that the prosecutors were utilizing the stay to disseminate political propaganda, with the knowledge that he would not respond due to the relief afforded him by the stay. Despite these assertions, Judge Chutkan found that the filing deadlines’ stay did not equate to an express prohibition of it. This suggests that while court proceedings are on hold, the government is not explicitly restricted from filing extra documents pending a decision from the DC Circuit.
The judge noted that while two additional documents had been filed by the government, Trump had not responded to these filings, merely objecting to them. It was also affirmed that no new requirements had been imposed on the parties by the court and, as a result, she dismissed Trump’s request to hold Smith in contempt.
In addition, she observed some ambiguity in the original stay order, thereby stipulating that henceforth both parties would be “forbidden from filing any further substantive pretrial motions without first seeking leave from the court.” With the DC Circuit’s verdict on Trump’s immunity claim expected imminently, until a decision is made, Trump and the federal prosecutors will be required to obtain permission from Chutkan before making any further document submissions.
Should Trump lose his appeal, he may still seek further appellate review of the issue, which could result in additional delays for the trial court proceedings. This, in turn, could impact the March 4 trial date, making it less likely for the trial to proceed as scheduled.