The Election That Ended the Federal Prosecution
Chapter 04 - The Election That Ended the Federal Prosecution
November 5, 2024.
Donald Trump won the presidential election and secured his return to the White House.
The result immediately transformed the legal situation facing Special Counsel Jack Smith.
For more than a year, prosecutors had pursued federal charges concerning Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump had fought those charges through motions, appeals, and a landmark Supreme Court decision.
Now another rule came into play.
The Justice Department had a longstanding policy against the federal criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
With Trump preparing to take office on January 20, 2025, prosecutors faced a major institutional obstacle to continuing the case.
The constitutional confrontation was no longer limited to whether particular acts were official or unofficial.
It also concerned the government's ability to pursue federal criminal proceedings against someone about to occupy the presidency again.
On November 25, 2024, Smith asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to dismiss the election-interference case.
The request was extraordinary.
A prosecution that had generated unprecedented legal arguments, extensive national coverage, and a landmark Supreme Court ruling would end without a jury deciding the charges.
Smith emphasized that the dismissal was not based on a change in prosecutors' assessment of the evidence.
Instead, the decision reflected the institutional circumstances created by Trump's election victory and the Justice Department's position concerning sitting presidents.
Judge Chutkan granted the request.
The case was dismissed without prejudice.
Legally, that meant the dismissal was not an acquittal and did not categorically foreclose every conceivable future proceeding.
But the immediate consequence was clear.
Trump would not face a federal criminal trial in that case before returning to the White House.
No jury had returned a verdict on the four charges.
The contested allegations had not been resolved through a completed criminal trial.
And the enormous legal confrontation ended in a way that had not appeared inevitable when the indictment was first filed.
The sequence was remarkable.
First came the indictment.
Then the immunity arguments.
Then the unanimous appeals court ruling rejecting Trump's broad claim.
Then the Supreme Court decision recognizing significant protections for official presidential acts.
And finally, an election victory that brought the prosecution to an end.
For Trump's defenders, the dismissal ended a case they had criticized as politically motivated.
For critics, the absence of a trial meant that important factual allegations would not receive a final determination from a federal jury.
Neither position could change the legal meaning of what had happened.
Dismissal was not conviction.
Dismissal was not acquittal.
And the Supreme Court's immunity decision remained binding precedent even after the individual prosecution ended.
The consequences reached into another federal case.
Smith also moved to abandon the federal government's pursuit of charges against Trump in the separate classified-documents prosecution, which had previously been dismissed by a district judge.
The broader federal criminal litigation involving Trump was winding down.
But the legal issues surrounding presidential authority were not disappearing.
The Supreme Court had established rules that would apply to future cases, regardless of which political party occupied the White House.
That became the lasting consequence of the confrontation.
And it created an important question for Americans long after the election was over.
What happens when a criminal case ends without a verdict, but the constitutional rules it produced remain in force?
[image](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=https://www.reuters.com\&sz=32)
Reuters
May you like
+2
\
