Following the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, Judge Tanya Chutkan will have a lot of work to do.

Donald Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies in the New York hush money case — but he faces a lengthy appeals process. What happened to the three other cases against him — the federal election interference case involving Jack Smith and secret documents, and the Georgia election interference case involving Fani Willis? All three have hit different snags. To help you keep up with all of Trump’s ongoing legal entanglements, we’ll bring you the latest developments in the Keeping up with Trump’s lawsuits.

It’s been a great week for Donald Trump, to be sure. In a landmark decision Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for any “official actions” he took as president. In a separate case, Fischer v. United Statesthe court also narrowed the scope of a federal obstruction law that was used to prosecute hundreds of rioters on Jan. 6 — a decision that could potentially weaken Jack Smith’s indictment. And for good measure, Judge Juan Merchan agreed to lift part of his gag order in Trump’s silence conviction.

Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity, sends case back to Judge Chutkan

In a 6-3 majority decision, conservative justices granted the former president massive win in Trump vs. United States. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, writing the court’s majority opinion, declared that the nature of the office of president “requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions while in office.”

Roberts writes that “official” actions involving “core constitutional powers” ​​are covered by presidential immunity. Trump “entitles at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all of his clerk acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.” The judge also writes that Trump’s discussions with his Justice Department to overturn the 2020 election results are an official act for which he cannot be prosecuted — striking down a key pillar of Smith’s indictment. And when Trump pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, to reject the electoral votes of swing states on Jan. 6, that is also an official act for which Trump is now safe and will never be prosecuted.

What about those “unofficial” acts? Well, Roberts doesn’t clearly define what falls into that category, leaving that determination up to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan. Roberts’ decision creates a glaring loophole, as Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern explains. “A president can simply lie and claim an act was done for some ‘official’ reason and gain nearly impenetrable immunity.”

Chutkan has a lot on her plate now that Trump’s federal election interference case has been on the back burner for the past six months. She’ll have to carefully review Smith’s indictment and apply the Supreme Court’s new standard for presidential immunity, dividing Trump’s actions into “official” and “unofficial” categories, and sorting out what’s left of the special counsel’s election interference indictment. It’s expected to be a complex process that all but guarantees Smith won’t be able to charge Trump before the November election.

Another Supreme Court Decision Weakens Jack Smith’s Indictment

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that Fischer v. United Statesthat the government overstepped its authority by passing a law it used to prosecute hundreds of people who breached the Capitol on January 6 — including Trump — by misapplying federal criminal law related to obstruction of justice.

Congress passed the contested law, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in the wake of the Enron scandal, making it a crime to destroy documents to obstruct a government investigation, as the company’s accountants routinely did when they suspected the Securities and Exchange Commission would come after them. The law also made it illegal to “otherwise obstruct” an official proceeding, a phrase the Justice Department used to prosecute hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol on January 6—until Joseph Fischer, one of the many defendants, sued. The Supreme Court ruled that Sarbanes-Oxley was intended to target people who tried to destroy or tamper with physical documents, and narrowed its scope accordingly.

That means the special counsel may have to reconsider at least two of the four counts against Trump in his election interference indictment. However, Smith has previously argued that his charges against Trump could still stand because of the use of physical fake election certificates that were sent to Congress and were supposed to be used on Jan. 6.

Aileen Cannon to Reconsider Trump’s Attorney-Client Privilege

Last week, Judge Aileen Cannon agreed to reconsider a ruling she issued last year on secret documents that allowed Smith to access information between Trump and his former lawyer Evan Corcoran that may have been protected by attorney-client privilege.

Judge Beryl A. Howell, who was then the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled last year that Trump likely used information given to him by Corcoran to commit a crime and applied the fraud exception. That allowed Smith to force Corcoran to waive attorney-client privilege when answering questions before the grand jury. Corcoran was also required to turn over audio recordings he made of conversations with Trump in which they discussed returning secret documents to the government. Howell’s ruling was a significant victory for Smith’s case, and Trump’s lawyers have been fighting to overturn it ever since.

In her order, Cannon wrote that “there is nothing unduly prejudicial or legally erroneous in Defendant Trump’s motion to dismiss,” despite Smith’s prosecution team arguing that the hearing on the matter would inevitably create a “mini-trial.”

Cannon’s decision to reconsider the fraud exception came a week after she held a four-hour hearing to assess whether Smith was wrongly appointed as special counsel. And while Cannon continues to give room to the myriad of motions filed by Trump’s defense team, there is no date in sight for a hearing on the secret documents case.

The ban on disclosing money has been relaxed

After months of anger over Judge Juan Merchan’s ban on speaking in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s bribery case, Trump can finally speak publicly about the witnesses and jury in the criminal trial that ended with his felony conviction.

Merchan has changed the terms of his gag order now that the hush money trial is over and all witnesses and jurors have been dismissed. However, Merchan still bars Trump and his lawyers from publicly disclosing the names and addresses of individual jurors and from speaking about court staff, prosecutors and their families until his July 11 sentencing.

During the trial, Trump violated Merchan’s speech ban at least 10 times, earning him a $10,000 fine and prompting a judge to threaten him with prison time. In Trump’s civil fraud case, he also violated a judge’s speech ban, earning $15,000 fines.