The dropping off the district court docket of the criminal case against President Trump in respect of January 6 represents a major victory for the 45th president as he seeks to secure reelection while fighting off a multi-pronged attack calculated to corner the courts into crippling him with a criminal conviction that could cost him the election and a second term.

While the March 9 start has not been officially revised, its unannounced disappearance from the public schedule is the strongest indication yet that a March trial date is slipping out of reach. Mr. Smith, who has pushed for speed at every juncture, is likely getting antsy. 

This is a somewhat unexpected setback. The United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has largely proven to be a favorable home field for the government, has, for three weeks now, fallen mum on whether Mr. Smith’ can proceed given the immunities of the presidency. The Supreme Court has declined the special counsel’s invitation to take up the question in an expedited fashion. 

The case is being — as it must be — “held in abeyance” by the district court judge, Tanya Chutkan, while the circuit riders mull over the extent of the presidency’s prerogatives. Mr. Smith has sought to continue to meet those suspended deadlines in the hope that whenever word comes down from the circuit riders, the case can promptly resume.

Mr. Trump alleged that such punctiliousness amounted to contempt of court. While Judge Chutkan did not go so far, she reiterated that the case is, for now, on pause. Now the Washington Post reports that Judge Chutkan observed, in the context of a different case, that “I suspect in March I will not be in trial.”

Last week, it turns out, Judge Chutkan set another trial for April 2, which likely will be incompatible with a March 9 start date in Mr. Smith’s case against Mr. Trump. Even if Mr. Trump were to lose before the circuit panel, he could request a full en banc hearing and, after that, his day before the Supreme Court. 

The prospect of a delay for the January trial comes amid a seeming slowdown on other prosecutorial fronts. The criminal case against Mr. Trump and 18 others brought by the district attorney of Fulton County, Fani Willis, has hit a snag in the form of efforts to disqualify her and her special prosecutor, over what she belatedly admits is a “personal relationship” between the two of them. 

Mr. Smith’s other case against Mr. Trump, for violating the Espionage Act by storing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after his presidency, appears to be moving with the pace of an iguana on a sleeping rock. The presiding judge there, Aileen Cannon, has set a May 20 trial date, but is still holding preliminary meetings at a pace that suggests that schedule will have to be revised. 

Even as the gears of these three criminal cases appear to be slowing, a fourth, brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg, could be set to capitalize on the fallow stretch of March where Judge Chutkan’s trial is meant to have been. The judge, Juan Merchan, in New York’s case against Mr. Trump for hush money payments to the adult film star Stormy Daniels could elect to move up his trial date of March 25. 

Judge Merchan could flesh out that intent at a hearing on February 15. Mr. Trump is no stranger to New York court rooms, having recently been ordered to pay $83 million in a defamation case against the writer E. Jean Carroll. 

Mr. Trump also awaits an order in another civil case, brought by Attorney General James, from a state judge, Arthur Engoron, detailing his penalty for the Trump Organization for being found liable for “persistent fraud.” Ms.  James wants $370 million in penalties and a lifetime ban on the 45th president from doing real estate business in New York. That finding of liability, which is expected to be adverse to Mr. Trump, will certainly be appealed.