Michigan judge dismisses Trump's 2020 Election lawsuit following prosecutors' motion

[UNITED STATES] Prosecutors moved to drop the prosecution and a second case against the president-elect, citing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president. On November 25, a US court dismissed the federal criminal case accusing Trump of trying to overturn his 2020 election setback.

This decision marks a significant turning point in the legal saga that has surrounded the former president since leaving office. The dismissal adheres to a long-standing Department of Justice policy that dates back to the 1970s, which argues that prosecuting a sitting president would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. This policy has been reaffirmed multiple times over the years, most recently in a comprehensive review conducted by the Office of Legal Counsel in 2000.

The government effort to hold Trump criminally accountable for his attempts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election, which culminated in a mob of his supporters attacking the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, has been put on hold by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan's decision.

The decision came as Special Counsel Jack Smith, the primary prosecutor overseeing both investigations, requested to drop the election case and end his attempt to resurrect a related prosecution accusing Trump of improperly storing confidential materials when he left office in 2021 following his first term as president.

The move by Special Counsel Jack Smith has sparked intense debate among legal scholars and political commentators. Critics argue that this policy creates a potential loophole for presidential accountability, while supporters maintain that it is essential for ensuring the uninterrupted functioning of the executive branch. The decision has also reignited discussions about the need for potential reforms to the Justice Department's policies regarding the prosecution of sitting presidents, with some experts calling for a reevaluation of this approach in light of the modern political landscape.

It is a significant legal victory for the Republican President-elect, who won the November 5 US election and is scheduled to return to office on January 20.

The prosecutors cited a Justice Department directive that dates back to the 1970s. It contends that prosecuting a serving president would violate the US Constitution by jeopardizing the chief executive's ability to perform. Courts will still have to approve both prosecutors' requests.

In a brief in the election subversion case, prosecutors stated that the department's policy requires the case to be closed before Trump can return to the White House.

This reliance on a decades-old policy has prompted calls for a reevaluation of the Justice Department's approach to presidential accountability. Some legal experts argue that the policy should be updated to reflect the increased scrutiny of presidential actions in recent years. Others contend that alternative mechanisms, such as impeachment or post-presidency prosecution, are sufficient to address potential presidential misconduct. The debate surrounding this issue is likely to continue, as the nation grapples with the complex interplay between presidential power, accountability, and the rule of law.

"This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant," prosecutors said in their brief. Prosecutors in the documents case have indicated that they will still urge a federal appeals court to reinstate the case against two Trump associates suspected of hindering the probe. Trump spokesman Steven Cheung welcomed the decision as "a major victory for the rule of law".

The contrasting reactions to this decision highlight the deep divisions that continue to characterize American politics. While Trump's supporters celebrate, his opponents express frustration and concern about the potential long-term consequences for democratic norms and institutions. As the nation moves forward, the focus is likely to shift to rebuilding trust in the electoral system, combating misinformation, and ensuring that future elections are conducted with the utmost transparency and security. The outcome of this legal saga will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the balance of power in American democracy and the accountability of future presidents.

Trump faced criminal accusations in four cases, including two brought by Mr Smith and two in state courts in New York and Georgia. He was convicted in the New York case, but the Georgia case, which also involves his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, is pending. On November 25, Trump railed on social media against the court cases, describing them as a "low point in the history of our country".

Mr Smith's actions, which were appointed in 2022 by US Attorney-General Merrick Garland, constitute a significant departure from the special prosecutor who obtained indictments against Trump in two separate instances accusing him of crimes that jeopardized US election integrity and national security.

Prosecutors admitted that the election of a president with outstanding criminal proceedings created an unprecedented situation for the Justice Department. Judge Chutkan left the door open for prosecutors to prosecute Trump again after he leaves office, although prosecutors would undoubtedly have problems in presenting a case so long after the conduct involved occurred.

In August 2023, Trump pled not guilty to four federal charges alleging he conspired to hinder vote collection and certification following his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump, who would once again control the Justice Department, was expected to order the closure of the federal 2020 election lawsuit and Mr Smith's appeal in the records case.

Aileen Cannon, a Florida-based federal judge chosen by Trump, dropped the classified materials case in July, concluding that Mr Smith was inappropriately appointed as special counsel.

Mr Smith's office had been appealing the ruling, and on November 25, it indicated that the appeal would continue in relation to Trump personal aide Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, a manager at his Mar-a-Lago property who had earlier been indicted in the case alongside Trump. Both Nauta and De Oliveria have pleaded not guilty, as has Trump.

In the 2020 election case, Trump's lawyers have stated that they would attempt to dismiss the charges based on a July US Supreme Court judgment that past presidents had extensive immunity from prosecution for official conduct made while in the White House.

Trump denied culpability in all cases, claiming that the US legal system had been used against him to harm his presidential campaign. During the campaign, he promised to fire Mr Smith if he was re-elected president.

In May, a New York jury found Trump guilty of criminal charges related to hush money paid to a porn star prior to the 2016 election, making him the first former president to be convicted of a crime. His sentence in that case has been postponed indefinitely. The criminal prosecution against Trump in Georgia state court over the 2020 election has stalled.