Judge Taps Brakes on Trump Case Pending Immunity Appeal

WASHINGTON — The federal judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s election interference case in Washington has paused the proceedings while he appeals her refusal to toss the matter.

In a three-page order released Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan writes, “the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the Court of Appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”

Trump filed an appeal last week after Chutkan rejected his motion to dismiss the Jan. 6 case on the grounds of presidential immunity as well as on First Amendment and other constitutional claims.

He also asked that all activity in the district court stop while he and his lawyers argue and await the outcome of the appeal.

Chutkan responded on Wednesday by pointing to Supreme Court precedent, and specifically the high court’s recent handling of Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski.

In that case, the justices applied a principle set forth in the 1982 case Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., which holds that when an interlocutory appeal is filed, as Trump did here, “any further proceedings before the district court must automatically be stayed.”

“The court reasoned that because ‘whether the litigation may go forward in the district court is precisely what the Court of Appeals must decide … it makes no sense for trial to go forward while the Court of Appeals cogitates on where there should be one,’” Chutkan explained.

“As the D.C. Circuit recently made clear,” she continued, “a former president’s absolute immunity would constitute ‘an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation,’ such as discovery obligations.

“Thus, because defendant has appealed this court’s denial of that immunity, ‘whether the litigation may go forward in the district court is precisely what the Court of Appeals must decide,’” she said.

At the very least, the maneuver by Trump and his legal team threatens to put off a March 4 trial date in the case indefinitely. Prosecutors have repeatedly asserted that the former president is using every means he can to potentially push his legal problems past the 2024 election.

In the meantime, Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in on Trump’s immunity defense.

“The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,” he wrote in his petition, in which he also asked the justices to quickly decide whether they will intervene.

If the justices do take up the case, they would be weighing a question that’s never been presented to them before — namely whether the Constitution confers absolute immunity on a former president against a federal prosecution for crimes he committed while in office.

Trump maintains that since the alleged actions he’s accused of took place while he was in the White House, the indictment against him should be tossed in its entirety.

Chutkan rejected that assertion two weeks ago, setting the current events in motion.

But she didn’t entirely consign herself to the sidelines of the case on Wednesday.

“The court emphasizes two limits on that stay,” she wrote. “First, as defendant notes, the stayed deadlines and proceedings are ‘held in abeyance’ … rather than permanently vacated.

“If jurisdiction is returned to this court, it will — consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties — consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024.

“Second, the court does not understand the required stay of further proceedings to divest it of jurisdiction to enforce the measures it has already imposed to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, including: defendant’s conditions of release, … the protective orders governing discovery materials, … the restrictions on extrajudicial statements … and protective jury procedures,” she continued.

“Unlike, for example, requiring additional discovery or briefing, maintaining those measures does not advance the case towards trial or impose burdens of litigation on defendant beyond those he already carries,” Chutkan wrote. “And if a criminal defendant could bypass those critical safeguards merely by asserting immunity and then appealing its denial, then during the appeal’s pendency, the defendant could irreparably harm any future proceedings and their participants.

“That said, there is little precedent guiding the application of Griggs to such protective measures. … Nonetheless, if he asks the court reviewing his immunity appeal to also take temporary jurisdiction over the enforcement of those measures, and that court agrees to do so, this court of course will be bound by that decision,” she concluded.

Dan can be reached at [email protected] and @DanMcCue