The Trump election interference case in D.C. is back on track after a year-long pause due to an immunity dispute.

• The federal criminal election interference case against Donald Trump was resumed in Washington, D.C., following a year-long pause due to debates over whether he can be charged for actions taken during his presidency.
• In the case, Tanya Chutkan listened to debates regarding the scheduling of legal briefs prior to a potential trial.
• The election between Trump and Harris will occur before the trial.

The federal criminal election interference case against Donald Trump was resumed in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, following a nearly year-long delay due to debates over whether he can be prosecuted for actions taken while he was president.

On Thursday morning, Tanya Chutkan listened to arguments regarding the scheduling of legal briefs prior to a potential trial in the case.

"Setting a trial date now is likely a futile exercise," Chutkan stated in U.S. District Court after the hearing.

She promised to establish a timeline for motions at the earliest opportunity.

The trial of Trump in the case may occur by 2025 at the earliest, but it is uncertain whether it will happen at all, as Chutkan's decisions on whether the case can proceed to trial are likely to be appealed by one party.

Thomas Windom, a prosecutor in the case, advised Chutkan to create a schedule that results in only one interlocutory appeal, emphasizing that this type of appeal happens before or during a trial, not after.

"We are aware of the upcoming interlocutory appeal and are attempting to restrict it to one," stated Window.

The hearing will take place two months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, has immunity from prosecution for official acts he carried out as president.

The Supreme Court determined that Trump, who will contest Vice President Kamala Harris in November, is not shielded from legal action for unofficial actions.

The court sent the case back to Judge Chutkan to determine what evidence could be used against Trump in a trial on the charges that he attempted to illegally overturn his loss in the 2020 election to President Joe Biden.

Last week, special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting Trump, obtained a superseding indictment against the former president that included the same four criminal counts he faced in the case, but did not include any claims that might be blocked by the Supreme Court's ruling.

On Thursday, Trump's defense team entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf during the hearing, but he was absent.

John Lauro, Trump's lawyer, informed Chutkan that he intends to submit a motion challenging the indictment of Trump, arguing that Smith, the head of the prosecution team, was not lawfully appointed to that position by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Lauro was questioned by Chutkan about why he had not previously filed a motion, and it was suggested that he had not done so because there was a precedent in D.C.'s federal appellate court upholding the legality of the attorney general appointing special counsels like Smith.

Lauro mentioned a concurrence to the July 1 Supreme Court ruling by Justice Clarence Thomas, which suggested that Smith's appointment may be unconstitutional.

A federal judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon, dismissed another criminal prosecution of Trump two weeks after the Supreme Court's ruling, citing that Smith's appointment as special counsel violated the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The former president was charged with keeping confidential government records following his departure from the White House and hindering efforts to retrieve them.

On Thursday, Lauro argued to Chutkan that he should be allowed to file a motion challenging Smith's appointment in the election interference case, citing Cannon's ruling.

Chutkan said that she did not find Cannon's decision "persuasive."

She agreed to let Lauro submit a request to challenge Smith's appointment, but instructed him to explain why the D.C. appellate court's previous decision does not prevent such a challenge.

The judge will dismiss the indictment against you after hearing from us in our motion papers, as Lauro informed the court.

Smith has appealed Cannon's dismissal of the classified documents case.