Jack Smith seeks more time to plan after immunity ruling

A registered trademark of donald trumplitigation strategy there was a delay. Now special advisor Jack Smith wants more time in the case of federal election interference, although not for the purpose of dragging it out.

In a joint order on Thursday from attorneys for Smith and Trump, the special counsel told U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that prosecutors are still evaluating the Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling In the case of Trump v. United States, including through consultations with other components of the Department of Justice. “Although these consultations are well underway, the Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate timetable for the parties to report on issues related to the decision”, according to the document, called “joint status report”. Smith asked Chutkan for “additional time to provide the Court with an informed proposal regarding the timeline for moving forward with pretrial proceedings.”

Chutkan asked the parties so that the proposal determines how to proceed after the case came back to her following the July 1 Supreme Court immunity ruling. She had also scheduled a status conference for Aug. 16. In Thursday’s request, Smith asked Chutkan for an extension to submit another joint report by Aug. 30 and to hold the previously scheduled Aug. 16 conference sometime after that. Unsurprisingly, the document noted that Trump “does not oppose the administration’s extension request.”

So what’s going on here? It’s not entirely clear from the filing, which (unsurprisingly) didn’t detail the DOJ’s deliberations or the extent to which there is disagreement within the department about how to move forward. In fact, the Supreme Court’s new test for determining who may be immune from prosecution is enigmatic enough to give rise to different interpretations and prosecution strategies. The government’s upcoming position paper may provide more information on the matter.

In any case, postponing the proposal for a few weeks will not make any difference to the possibility of a trial taking place before the elections. The moment and the substance of the Supreme Court’s decision has already made this impracticable. The real question now is not whether a trial will take place before the presidential election, but, in the short term, whether Trump will win that election, in which case he could crush the prosecution himself. If he loses, then the question is what will be left of the case after the high court ruling that at least restrains the prosecution.

This is not an excuse for the government to be unprepared with its position on how to proceed, but it is a reality that hangs over the case regardless of Smith’s ultimate position. The bottom line for now is that since there will be no pre-election trial, it is difficult to see this development as a significant delay in the grand scheme of things. This delay has already occurred.

The next step is for Chutkan to decide whether to accept the request. If he does, there will be no significant movement in the case before September. It turns out that it is at this moment that judge Juan Merchan is expected to rule on the effect of the immunity decision on Trump’s guilty verdicts in New York and sentence him that month if he finds that the immunity ruling doesn’t get in the way. So the next big thing in the Trump cases could be Smith’s petition, which will be delivered later this month to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging dismissal of Trump’s classified federal documents casewhose fate, like the case of interference in federal elections, is also partially linked to the outcome of the presidential elections.

Sign up to Deadline: Legal Bulletin for updates and expert analysis on top legal stories. The newsletter will return to its regular weekly schedule when the Supreme Court’s next term begins in October.

This article was originally published in MSNBC.com