By
The trial date that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon sets in the classified documents case could affect not only when that one goes forward, but the timing of the federal election interference case as well. It’s entirely possible, thanks in part to the Supreme Court, that neither trial happens before the election — which, if Trump wins, means it’s possible neither case ever sees trial. He’d quash both prosecutions should he take the White House again.
Ahead of a Florida hearing on Friday, special counsel Jack Smith asked for July and Donald Trump and his co-defendants asked for August and September start dates (Trump and Carlos De Oliveira asked for August, while their co-defendant Walt Nauta asked for September, citing his lawyer’s scheduling issues). To be sure, Trump only offered a date because he had to; his lawyers wrote in their filing, “As the leading candidate in the 2024 election, President Trump strongly asserts that a fair trial cannot be conducted this year in a manner consistent with the Constitution.”
So let’s say Cannon sets a trial date sometime in late summer. Consider that alongside the Supreme Court’s decision this week to take up Trump’s immunity claim in the federal election interference case, which could push that trial into that same late-summer slot. If the classified documents case is already on the books, Trump would argue the D.C. case can’t happen then, which could stop the D.C. trial from happening before the election entirely. In that scenario, Trump would have to hope the Florida case doesn’t actually go forward, which, in Cannon’s hands, is not a misplaced hope.
To be sure, this isn’t all Cannon’s doing. The Supreme Court plays a big part here. Indeed, in their scheduling filing to Cannon, Trump’s lawyers praise the justices’ decision to take up the immunity bid, calling the move to consider Trump’s far-fetched claim “an important step toward the protection of the U.S. Constitution and fair system of justice that President Trump seeks in this District and elsewhere.”
They’re correct in calling the Supreme Court’s move “important.” Whether it winds up protecting the Constitution very much remains to be seen.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.