The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s January 6 case has extended the president’s deadline to decide on his next legal move after a significant filing from special prosecutor Jack Smith was unsealed.
On Thursday, Trump requested U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to keep an appendix to Smith’s October 2 motion—related to Trump’s claims of presidential immunity—out of public view. This motion followed a Supreme Court ruling in July that granted the president broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. In the filing, Smith alleged that Trump knew he lost the 2020 election, dismissed lawyer Sidney Powell’s theories as “crazy,” and fabricated figures about noncitizen voting.
Trump, who had previously resisted restrictions on his public comments about the case, reiterated his call to keep the details of the appendix under seal. His legal team also requested that any decision on Smith’s motion be postponed until after the 2024 presidential election, in which Trump is the Republican frontrunner.
“There should be no further disclosures at this time of the so-called ‘evidence’ that the Special Counsel’s Office has unlawfully cherry-picked and mischaracterized—during early voting in the 2024 Presidential election—in connection with an improper Presidential immunity filing,” Trump’s legal team argued.
Trump’s lawyers signaled their intent to challenge any ruling by Judge Chutkan that would allow the release of Smith’s evidence. They requested that if any information from the appendix is released, the court allow time for Trump to consider his legal options.
Judge Chutkan, in her order, dismissed Trump’s broad objections dismissed Trump’s broad objections to unsealing the appendix, finding the government’s proposed redactions appropriate. She noted that Trump’s concerns over the political impact of the proceedings did not constitute legal prejudice. However, she granted Trump’s request for additional time, issuing a seven-day stay to allow him to assess his next steps.
Read Trump’s court filing here.
Read Judge Chutkan’s response here.
