WASHINGTON: The federal judge presiding over the election subversion case against former US President Donald Trump granted a request on Friday by prosecutors for more time to prepare.

The delay makes it even more unlikely that a trial in the historic case will take place before November’s presidential election, in which Trump is the Republican candidate. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had asked Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges against Trump, and defence lawyers to file a schedule by Friday for pretrial proceedings.

But Smith late on Thursday asked for an additional three weeks to prepare in light of the Supreme Court ruling that a former president has broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

“The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v the United States,” Smith said. He requested that Chutkan delay the submission of the schedule for pretrial proceedings until August 30 and the judge agreed.

Chutkan also agreed to delay a status hearing in the case from August 16 to September 5. Chutkan regained jurisdiction over the case last week after it was paused so the Supreme Court could rule on the immunity question.

The conservative-dominated top court ruled 6-3 on July 1 that an ex-president has broad immunity from prosecution for official acts conducted while in office, but can be pursued for unofficial acts.

Trump is accused of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding — the January 6, 2021 joint session of Congress that was attacked by Trump supporters. Trump is also accused of seeking to disenfranchise American voters with his false claims that he won the 2020 election.

He was originally scheduled to go on trial on March 4, but it was put on hold while his lawyers pushed his claim of presidential immunity all the way up to the Supreme Court.

‘Official and unofficial acts’

It will be up to Chutkan, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, to decide which of Trump’s actions regarding the 2020 election were official acts and which were unofficial acts subject to potential prosecution. That — along with other pre-trial issues — is expected to take months, making it unlikely the case will go to trial before the November 5 election between Trump and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

Trump was convicted in New York in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Sentencing has been scheduled for September 18, but Trump’s lawyers have asked for his conviction to be tossed, citing the Supreme Court immunity ruling.

Trump also faces charges in Georgia related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump was also charged in Florida with mishandling top secret documents after leaving the White House, but the judge presiding over the case, Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, dismissed the charges on the grounds that Smith, the special counsel, was unlawfully appointed. Smith has appealed Cannon’s ruling.

Published in Dawn, August 10th, 2024

Opinion

Editorial

New regional order
Updated 11 May, 2026

New regional order

The fact is that the US has only one true security commitment in the Middle East — Israel.
A better start
11 May, 2026

A better start

THE first 1,000 days of a child’s life often shape decades to come. In Pakistan, where chronic malnutrition has...
Widening gap
11 May, 2026

Widening gap

PAKISTAN’S monthly trade deficit ballooned to $4.07bn last month, its highest level since June 2022, further...
Momentary relief
Updated 10 May, 2026

Momentary relief

THE IMF’s approval of the latest review of Pakistan’s ongoing Fund programme comes at a moment of growing global...
India’s global shame
10 May, 2026

India’s global shame

INDIA’s rabid streak is at an all-time high. Prejudice is now an organised movement to erase religious freedoms ...
Aurat March restrictions
Updated 10 May, 2026

Aurat March restrictions

The message could not have been clearer: women may gather, but only if they remain politically harmless.