Special Counsel Jack Smith’s plan for how Judge Tanya Chutkan ought to handle the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling in his January 6 case is now due just two weeks before Judge Juan Merchan will rule whether that same immunity warrants overturning President Trump’s 34 convictions at Manhattan.

That week in late summer, two months before the election, could determine whether the 45th president faces a prison sentence in one case and the possibility of a trial in another — or hits the electoral stretch run with a signature courtroom win under his belt.  

The special counsel requested — and was granted — an extra three weeks to digest the high court’s decision in Trump v. United States, meaning that the “mini trial” to determine the extent of Trump’s immunity now appears slated to swing into action this fall. Judge Chutkan has shown herself to be a jurist who acts with alacrity, especially when it comes to the prosecution of January 6 cases, and the next phase of the trial will transpire in her courtroom. 

Judge Chutkan’s original ruling that Trump did not have immunity — she declared from the bench the “Presidents are not kings — was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but was overruled by the Supreme Court. 

The implications of the Nine’s ruling that presidents are presumptively immune for official acts, absolutely immune for actions undertaken in the heartland of their responsibility, and not at all immune for unofficial acts are not confined to Mr. Smith. 

The 45th president contends that immunity scuttles the convictions won by District Attorney Alvin Bragg for falsification of business records in connection to alleged hush-money payments to an adult film star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. Mr. Bragg argues immunity does not stretch to cover trial testimony from two of Trump’s most trusted White House aides.

Judge Merchan intends to rule on that issue on September 16, and it is possible that Mr. Smith’s views for how his case should proceed could find their way into the judge’s decision on whether the jury verdict out of Manhattan — “guilty” on all counts — should be overturned. Mr. Bragg argues that all of the conduct for which Trump was convicted falls firmly on the unofficial side of the ledger.

If Judge Merchan reaches the same conclusion, all eyes will turn to a September 18 hearing. That’s when the judge is scheduled to sentence Trump if he does not overrule the conviction first, which appears unlikely. Even before the hush money trial — and prior to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling — Trump made the case that the charges interfered with presidential prerogative. Mr. Bragg maintains that the high court’s decision “has no bearing” on his charges.

Before Judge Merchan rules on immunity or sentencing, he will decide another outstanding motion: whether to grant the felon’s motion that he recuse himself from the case. Judge Merchan denied such a request in April, but Trump has renewed it. He argues that Judge Merchan’s adult daughter Loren “obtained — and stands to obtain in the future — extensive financial, professional, and personal benefits from her relationship” with Vice President Harris. 

Ms. Merchan is employed by a digital advertising agency that did work for Ms. Harris’s Senate campaign  — and for President Biden, to whom the jurist donated $35 during the last election cycle. Ms. Merchan has also worked for other foes of Trump such as Representative Adam Schiff. Trump’s attorneys argue that Judge Merchan’s decisions “on the pending Presidential immunity motion and at any sentencing would benefit” not only Ms. Harris “but also the professional aspirations and financial status of Your Honor’s daughter.”

Ms. Merchan and her business activities are now protected by a gag order, imposed by her father, who’s warned in court that Trump faces possible incarceration should he be in violation. Trump’s attorneys have argued vigorously for the gag order to be lifted. So far, it’s been lifted with respect to Ms. Clifford and another Trump antagonist, one of his former lawyers, Michael Cohen, but not for Ms. Merchan.

Trump’s lawyers are likely workshopping similar arguments for Mr. Smith’s January 6 case. The 45th president has already asked Judge Chutkan to dismiss the case as an instance of “selective and vindictive” prosecution, which she promptly declined to do. Trump is likely to appeal any determination of an act as “unofficial” to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and eventually to the Supreme Court, which overruled Judge Chutkan on immunity. 

In Mr. Smith’s request for a delay, he cited the need for consultation with “other Justice Department components,” which could comprise Attorney General Garland. If the decision to plead for additional time came from the attorney general, it could suggest that the government reckons that the introduction, close to the vote, of witnesses and evidence relating to Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, could be helpful for the prosecution — and, possibly, Ms. Harris’s campaign.