July 2024 may be better remembered as the month in American politics that felt like a year: Former President Donald Trump avoided an assassination attempt and named his vice-presidential candidate for a series of days; his then political rival withdrew from the race in 2024 and endorsed his own vice president.

But focusing only on politics ignores a couple of massive developments in special counsel Jack Smith’s two federal criminal cases against Trump, which are expected to drop if Trump is re-elected.

Still, while both cases have hit serious roadblocks, neither is over by a long shot. Here are the federal cases:

The case of classified federal documents

In Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon ruled this month that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith as special counsel in November 2022 and the Justice Department’s funding of the agency’s special counsel expenses were inconsistent with not one but two provisions of Article II of the Constitution: the so-called Appointments and Appropriations Clauses. Therefore, Cannon argued that the case could not proceed, regardless of whether Trump’s other objections were valid.

Smith’s office has done it how and where it plans to move forward. Specifically, with the DOJ’s blessing, the special counsel appealed Cannon’s decision on July 15 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which oversees federal trial courts in Florida, as well as Alabama and Georgia.

Some legal experts, including former federal prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Mary McCord, had argued that has DOH restore the case would be the best and fastest way to get the case back on track. But according to former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance, “If the special counsel continues the appeal, it is extremely unlikely that the DOJ will refile during its pendency, in part because it will likely appeal the appeal.”

Also note that Smith’s office has only filed one appeal so far, which is like a letter of intent. The actual cards are not until August 27. Currently, Trump’s opposition to the appeal is pending 30 days after that, and the special counsel can file a response 21 days after that. With briefing ending in mid-October and no date for oral argument set, the 11th Circuit is unlikely to issue an opinion before the election — and so far, the special counsel’s office has not asked the court to expedite the briefing and processing of the appeal .

But in 2022, Smith requested — and got — an expedited review when he successfully appealed Cannon’s appointment of a special master to review material seized at Mar-a-Lago in August of that year. The timeframe for Smith’s appeal may be just as critical here.

The score: The Mar-a-Lago dossier is over for now — but it could come back with a vengeance under 11th Circuit rules, assuming Trump isn’t back in the Oval Office by then.

The case of federal election interference

While the classified documents case awaits appellate debriefing, the federal election meddling case pending in Washington, DC, before Judge Tanya Chutkan, has yet to be reopened following the Supreme Court’s broad immunity ruling in Trump against the United States. But that case is expected to be largely reduced.

For example, the majority opinion holds unambiguously that Trump is “absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.” Therefore, going forward, legal experts expect that neither the charges themselves nor the evidence can refer to Trump’s conversations with then-Attorney General Bill Barr; his acting successor, Jeffrey Rosen, and Rosen’s deputy, Rich Donoghue; and also Trump’s alleged co-conspirator, then Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark.

Still, the Supreme Court was equally clear that it is Chutkan’s job to sort out when immunity applies to the rest of the prosecution, at least “in the first instance.” According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, she must:

• Determine “with appropriate input from the parties, whether an indictment involving Trump’s alleged attempt to influence the vice president’s oversight of the certification process … would present any dangers of encroachment on the authority and functions of the executive branch”;
• Conduct a “close” and “fact-specific” “analysis of the indictment’s extensive and related allegations” of Trump’s interactions “with a variety of government officials and private individuals,” including Trump’s communications about and organization and implementation of the “voter fraud.” ” schedule;
• Conducts another “necessarily factual” and admittedly “challenging” review of “Trump’s conduct in relation to the events of January 6 itself,” including an “objective analysis of the ‘content, form, and context'” of Trump’s tweets and public statements on that day .

The court therefore ordered that the case be remanded—or remanded—to the Chutkan to determine whether these categories of alleged conduct are official or unofficial, and if official, whether the presumption of immunity can be rebutted.

What form that process will take is not yet resolved. Some legal experts believe that the Supreme Court’s repeated references to “fact-bound” or “fact-specific” analyzes require Chutkan to hold one or more evidentiary hearings “filled with key witness statements,” such as MSNBC legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann has written. After all, in classifying Trump’s public statements and tweets on and about January 6, the Supreme Court noted that Chutkan could find relevant “what else was said concurrently with the extended communications, or who was involved in to transmit the electronic communication and organize collection.” That kind of information is not disclosed in the indictment and would require additional evidence.

On the other hand, other aspects of the task placed in Chutkan’s hands seem to lend themselves to a more straightforward, albeit close, reading of the indictment, supplemented by submissions from the parties, as suggested by the Supreme Court. Public reporting also indicates that Trump’s team intends to argue that Chutkan can resolve what behavior is and is not immune.based on legal arguments alone, negating the need for witnesses or more evidentiary hearings,” which could be embarrassing or even politically damaging for Trump as he campaigns for the presidency again.

But no matter how Chutkan intends to proceed, she can’t really start yet. Rather, a judgment of the Supreme Court provides that unless the full court or a single judge decides or the parties themselves agree otherwise, a case does not come back to the district court until 32 days after the judgment is announced. The special counsel did not plan to ask the Supreme Court to speed up that time, It was reported by NBC News Earlier this month.

Still, why wouldn’t the Special Counsel try to revive the case more quickly? Some believe that instead of delving into a full-blown battle over what charges and accusations might be leveled against Trump, Smiths office can first try to limit its case by streamlining its prosecution. This may involve substituting a new or superseding indictment for the existing one, but it is not as simple as simply preparing a revised document.

Instead, Smith would need a grand jury to review and approve such an indictment. Experts note that given the voluminous testimony previously presented, prosecutors would not need to recall witnesses. A so-called summary witness, such as an FBI agent assigned to the case, could read relevant excerpts of such testimony to a grand jury, for example.

But in any case, the case will not be sent back to Chutkan before August 2. And in February, during a hearing in another January 6-related case, Chutkan revealed plans to be out of the country days later, on August 5, unless the Trump trial was underway then. A review of publicly available court calendars shows Chutkan has no scheduled cases next month until Aug. 15.

But assuming Chutkan convenes some sort of public hearing in mid-August or shortly thereafter, the contours of what would happen at such a conference, or whether any briefing will be ordered in advance, remain unclear.

In addition, some reports suggests that Trump’s lawyers intend to file other pretrial motions unrelated to immunity when Chutkan regains the reins. For example, despite successfully litigating the issue before Cannon, Trump’s team never moved to dismiss the Washington case on the grounds that Smith was illegally appointed and that his office was illegally funded. It may be because in 2019 The DC Circuit rejected nearly identical arguments regarding the appointment of then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Nonetheless, at oral argument in the presidential immunity case, Trump’s lawyer John Sauer implied it was just a matter of timing: “We hadn’t brought it up yet in this case when this case went to appeal.”

Given Trump’s potential challenge to Smith’s very authority to impeach Trump in Washington, and with Chutkan possibly not taking control of the case again for several weeks, it is not clear that the evidentiary hearings that some believe are warranted will happen anytime soon. Indeed, Chutkan holding any evidentiary hearing at all before the end of the year may be a feat of judicial oversight and control in and of itself.

The point: While the federal election meddling case has technically survived the Supreme Court’s ruling, that decision will almost certainly mar the case with legal wrangling in the coming months. And whether even a slim case moves forward will depend on further appeals and the election itself, because if Trump wins in November, this case is effectively over.