What to know about AP’s report on the federal criminal case against former President Donald Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — A year that began with the prospect of a federal court verdict for Donald Trump will end with no chance of a trial and voters without the finality of a jury verdict in the two most consequential cases leave behind Republican presidential candidate against Trump.

But both cases – one accusing him of illegally hoarding confidential documents, the other of trying to overturn his 2020 defeat – are still at the heart of the election.

Their possible resurgence makes clear that the November vote is not just about the presidency but also potentially about Trump’s freedom as he faces lengthy court battles.

A look at why neither case went to trial this year:

Nuclear capabilities and attack plans

The indictment, which accuses Trump of illegally hoarding classified documents, included a series of high-profile allegations, including that he blithely flaunted a Pentagon “attack plan” and repeatedly hired aides and lawyers to help him to hide documents requested by investigators.

Prosecutors took the national security concerns for granted: The documents contained details of nuclear capabilities and the recordings were scattered haphazardly around Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property, including in his bathroom.

They also viewed the evidence as compelling and clear: An audio recording captured Trump bragging about a document he said he knew was secret, and a surveillance video showed boxes of records , which were removed from a storage unit at Mar-a-Lago, and that was great. A Trump lawyer’s jury testimony implicated Trump in a plot to deceive the FBI.

These factors combined fueled the widespread perception that the secret documents case was the most dangerous of the four criminal cases he faced last year.

A skeptical judge

Hours before the indictment was unsealed, it was announced that the case had been assigned to Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee with limited trial experience who is based not in Miami’s busy federal courthouse but in the far quieter city of Fort Pierce, two hours north.

It was an unwelcome development for the Justice Department, which less than a year earlier had clashed with Cannon over her decision to grant Trump’s request to appoint an independent arbitrator to review classified documents seized by the FBI. That decision was overturned by a unanimous federal appeals panel, which found Cannon had overstepped her bounds.

Cannon’s handling of the criminal case came under even more scrutiny as she allowed defense motions to pile up, causing endless delays, and accepted arguments from the Trump team – including that he was entitled to do so under the Presidential Records Act was to take confidential documents with him after he left the criminal proceedings at the White House – which were viewed by prosecutors and legal experts as frivolous. Meanwhile, she argued with prosecutors, who became increasingly angry but did not ask to dismiss her from the case.

She postponed the trial indefinitely in May, weeks before it was scheduled to begin, and then held a multiday hearing the following month on the Trump team’s arguments that Smith was illegally appointed because he was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and not was confirmed by the Senate.

The following month, she made the surprise decision to dismiss the case, supporting the Trump team’s arguments about Smith’s appointment.

The Capitol riot

Trump’s efforts to stay in power were well documented as he was accused of trying to overturn the 2020 election.

Nonetheless, the case further fleshed out details of what prosecutors say were Trump’s wide-ranging schemes, including his continued harassment of Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the electoral vote count.

The indictment was the result of cooperation from close associates and other targets of Trump’s pressure campaign, including before the grand jury. Trump had tried to stop Pence from testifying, citing executive privilege, but a federal appeals court forced the ex-vice president to appear – and the resulting indictment details notes Pence made about conversations with the president.

Although the secret documents case seemed legally simple, the election interference charge against Trump was anything but simple. On the one hand, the case concerned behavior that Trump had exhibited during his time in office, which brought prosecutors into complicated legal territory.

Enter the Supreme Court

Both the trial judge presiding over Trump’s election interference case and a federal appeals court have firmly rejected the former president’s claims that he is immune from prosecution.

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court took a completely different view.

After denying Smith’s December 2023 request to skip a lower court and take the case immediately, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments last April and made clear through the tenor of his questioning that he agreed with the allegations against Trump was skeptical about it – even if it was not the case to accept his claims of absolute immunity.

The result was a landmark 6-3 ruling that gave former presidents broad immunity. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said ex-presidents are immune from prosecution for actions that fall within their core constitutional duties, presumptively immune from other official actions, and not immune at all from private actions.

The ruling sparked strong dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said it was “a mockery” of the principle that “no one is above the law.”

“Because our Constitution does not protect a former president from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I disagree,” she wrote.

The practical effect of the ruling was to limit the scope of the prosecution by removing from the proceedings allegations related to Trump’s efforts to use the Justice Department’s prosecutorial powers to remain in office and leaving the matter in the hands of the court’s judge became. Tanya Chutkan, which other acts in the indictment are not official acts and can therefore remain part of the indictment.

The path ahead

Smith’s team has appealed Cannon’s dismissal of the case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

It’s unclear when and how the court will rule, but prosecutors repeatedly emphasized in their brief that Cannon’s order represents a radical break with decades of precedent and differs from the way judges across the country have considered the same question the legality of the appointment of special advisers.

They warned that their conclusion that Smith’s was illegal because it was made by the attorney general and not confirmed by the Senate “could jeopardize the longstanding operations of the Justice Department and call into question hundreds of appointments across the executive branch.”

Assuming the appeals court overturns Cannon, the next big question will be whether it will assign the case to another judge to continue proceedings.

Meanwhile, the election interference case continues in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion. However, there is no chance of a trial before the election – and possibly no chance of a trial at all if Trump wins and orders the case dismissed.