As election nears, last-minute motions could prove pivotal for criminal cases against Trump

Former President Donald Trump has thus far largely fended off his myriad legal woes, delaying proceedings and bogging down cases in the appeals process. Though the prospect of additional convictions prior to the election remain dim, Trump now faces attempts to revive some of his criminal prosecutions and barriers to his own efforts to delay proceedings further.

Trump has faced four separate criminal cases, including two from special counsel Jack Smith related to his 2020 election challenges and his storage of sensitive materials at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis further brought Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act charges against Trump and 18 co-defendants related to his election challenge in Georgia. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s hush money case is the only case to proceed to trial and secure a conviction.

While the Georgia case remains on ice until December, when an appeals court plans to hear arguments over Willis’s eligibility to remain on the case, the other three have witnessed at least some movement in recent weeks, potentially signaling they could resume in earnest in the near future. Here’s a look at where each case stands.

DC election case

Trump’s attorneys were in court on Thursday to address a revised indictment from Smith in the D.C. election case. Attorney John Lauro entered a not guilty plea on Trump’s behalf in response to allegations from Smith’s office.

Smith originally charged Trump with four counts last August, including “conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.”

Trump initially claimed to enjoy immunity from prosecution, though U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected his argument. The matter proceeded through the appeals process until it eventually reached the Supreme Court.

The revised indictment followed the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity, which found that the president enjoys broad immunity for official acts, but not private ones. While Trump celebrated the ruling, it did not end the case and Smith in August filed a revised indictment.

“The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States,” Smith’s office said at the time.

During the Thursday hearing, Chutkan declined to set a trial date, contending that to do so would be an “exercise in futility” and that “[t]he issue of immunity will stop these proceedings once again.”

Likely at issue will be the classification of Smith’s allegations as either official or unofficial acts and, hence, whether Trump enjoys any immunity. The revised indictment includes the original four charges, but drops specific claims, including an allegation that Trump pressured the Department of Justice to overturn the 2020 election results.

"[I]mmunity needs to be dealt with as early as possible,” Chutkan said. Trump is likely to argue that the Supreme Court decision grants him immunity from Smith’s charges, an argument which could conceivably see the matter return to the Supreme Court.

Mar-a-Lago case

In July, Trump-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Smith’s superseding indictment in the Mar-a-Lago case on constitutional grounds, determining that Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause and that he lacked authority to pursue the case.

The prosecution itself, based in the Southern District of Florida, stemmed from Trump’s retention of materials at his Mar-a-Lago estate that resulted in an August 2022 raid by the FBI. Trump pleaded not guilty to 37 counts nearly a year later. Smith subsequently unveiled additional charges in a superseding indictment in July 2023.

Trump denied wrongdoing and made multiple attempts to delay the trial, ultimately securing an indefinite pause in May. Cannon’s dismissal of the case in July 2024 followed multiple failed attempts by Trump to secure a dismissal along other lines of argument.

But Cannon’s dismissal is far from the final word on the matter and Smith has asked the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to reinstate the case. The court has yet to issue a decision on the matter, though even a revived case would likely not go to trial before the election.

Cannon’s own handling of the case, however, has come under scrutiny and a watchdog group this week intervened to ask the 11th Circuit to remove her from the case. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed the request, arguing that "Judge Cannon’s other extraordinary rulings and sluggish administration of the case had provoked well-founded concerns that she might be biased against the Government’s case and unable to manage that case impartially.”

Smith has not independently asked for Cannon’s removal.

New York hush money case

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s hush money case has thus far been the only one to proceed to trial and result in a conviction. A New York jury found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a 2016 payment his then-attorney, Michael Cohen, made to Stormy Daniels.

State court Judge Juan Merchan initially set the sentencing date for July 11, though he subsequently delayed it until Sept. 18. Trump, however, still hopes to delay his sentencing until after the election entirely.

Last week, Trump's attorneys asked Merchan to suspend proceedings in the case entirely until a federal court weighed in on a bid to move the case to federal court. A federal judge on Tuesday, however, rejected the transfer.

Ahead of the sentencing, however, Merchan will preside over a hearing to address Trump’s immunity claims in light of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. Trump’s attorneys in July asked Merchan to toss out the guilty verdict in light of the decision, arguing that evidence and testimony from the trial should have been protected under presidential immunity.

The hearing on immunity is scheduled for Sept. 16.

Georgia election case

Willis’s prosecution of Trump is on pause pending oral arguments before the Georgia Court of Appeals over her eligibility to remain on the case set for Dec. 5. The case will not proceed to trial prior to the election as a consequence.

The DA initially charged Trump in August of 2023 in connection with his election challenges. Trump was processed at the Fulton County jail, where authorities took a mugshot that he ultimately used on campaign merchandise.

The prosecution fell apart amid allegations that Willis had maintained an improper relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor whom she hired to pursue the case against Trump. The pair admitted to the relationship but contended it did not begin until after Willis hired Wade.

Fulton County Superior Judge Scott McAfee in March ruled that either Willis or Wade must step down from the case, saying that the "allegations and evidence [were] legally insufficient to support a finding of an actual conflict of interest" but he did express concerns over the "appearance of impropriety." Wade stepped down the following day.

Trump appealed McAfee’s decision, seeking to remove Willis from the case as well and the Georgia Court of Appeals in May agreed to hear the matter. But Trump’s team subsequently asked for oral arguments, an unusual move given that the court typically decides appellate matters by reviewing written briefs. Oral arguments were originally set for Oct. 4, but have been delayed to the December date. That court is the intermediate appellate court in Georgia, whose decisions may be certified for appeal to the state's Supreme Court, presenting another potential delay.