Special counsel Jack Smith filed court documents on Monday to request the dismissal of the criminal election interference case against President-elect Donald Trump, based on a long-standing Justice Department policy that prohibits the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president. The request was granted by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan just a few hours after Smith’s filing, leading to the end of the charges related to Trump’s alleged attempts to undermine the 2020 election on January 6.
While the dismissal was anticipated, Smith asked that the case be dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning that prosecutors could potentially bring the same charges again in the future. In her ruling, Judge Chutkan agreed that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate, noting that the immunity a sitting president enjoys from prosecution is not permanent, expiring when they leave office.
Smith’s motion emphasized the Department of Justice’s policy, underscoring that it applies in this case because of the unique situation of a private citizen being elected to the presidency while under indictment. The motion detailed how, according to the Department of Justice’s interpretation of the Constitution, the prohibition on the prosecution of a sitting president is categorical, meaning it does not depend on the severity of the charges or the strength of the evidence. Therefore, Smith argued, the case had to be dismissed before Trump could be inaugurated.
This case is one of two major criminal investigations led by Smith into Trump. The other involves Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents after his first term. The D.C. case, which involves Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, has faced legal questions, especially in light of a recent Supreme Court decision that granted sitting presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office. Evidence of such acts cannot be used against a president in a criminal case, even if the underlying conduct is personal.
While the dismissal of the case was inevitable given the DOJ’s policy, it is unlikely to provide definitive answers to broader questions about presidential immunity, as many expect Trump to seek a pardon for himself if he returns to office.
In his memo, Smith reiterated the Department of Justice’s stance that a sitting president’s immunity is only temporary, extending only during their term in office. This temporary nature of immunity does not negate the importance of upholding the rule of law, the memo stated, and such immunity only causes a delay, rather than a permanent halt, to any criminal proceedings.
In addition to the dismissal of the D.C. case, the Florida case regarding the alleged mishandling of classified documents was dismissed earlier in July by U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon. Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, ruled that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland had unlawfully appointed Smith as special counsel. This ruling has resulted in delays and is currently under appeal. Smith has requested that the court of appeals dismiss the case without prejudice, similar to the D.C. case.
Smith also indicated that he plans to continue the prosecution of Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, both of whom have pleaded not guilty to charges related to the election subversion case. Smith’s actions in the Florida case and the D.C. case are seen as part of his broader strategy to navigate the legal challenges surrounding Trump’s actions before and after his presidency.
Despite the complexities involved in these cases, Smith’s team has expressed confidence that the legal system will continue to move forward with appropriate actions once Trump’s term in office ends. The prospect of Trump facing legal consequences for his alleged actions remains a matter of significant public interest, and the future of these cases will depend largely on the political and legal landscape following his term as president.
