Welcome back to the Trump Trial newsletter, where we’ll be a bit manic Monday, waiting for the Supreme Court decision on Trump’s claim that presidential immunity prevents his prosecution for allegedly conspiring to obstruct the results of the 2020 election.

Have questions on Trump’s trials? Email us at perry.stein@washpost.com and devlin.barrett@washpost.com and check for answers in future newsletters. (Like what you’re reading? Sign up to get The Trump Trials in your email inbox every Sunday.)

Okay, let’s get started.

What’s ahead

The Supreme Court’s long-awaited immunity decision is likely to land around 10 a.m. You can count on us for extensive coverage of the decision as we sort through what it means not only for the D.C. case, but for future presidents, the constitutional balance of power between the different branches of the U.S. government, and maybe even Trump’s other criminal cases.

Subscribe to The Trump Trials: Sidebar to hear our team break down the most important — and historic — twists and turns in the former president’s ongoing legal troubles.

Now, a recap of last week’s action in the criminal cases against the 45th president:

1. Florida: Federal classified documents case

The details: Trump faces 40 federal charges over accusations that he kept top-secret government documents at Mar-a-Lago — his home and private club — and thwarted government demands to return them.

Planned trial date: Indefinitely postponed

Last week: U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon held a series of hearings on pretrial issues, including defense arguments to have the indictment dismissed. The hearings were occasionally contentious, as prosecutors grow increasingly impatient with the slow pace of the case.

Cannon later denied a Trump request for a hearing on one issue but granted requests for a hearing on two others — whether the Mara-a-Lago search warrant was too vague, and whether prosecutors may use the audio notes of a former Trump lawyer against him.

Based on the known evidence, those defense arguments can be charitably called long shots, but the stakes are higher for one than the other. If prosecutors were to lose the statements of ex-Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran, that would make a dent in their presentation; if they were to lose the evidence gathered in the search of Trump’s Florida home — more than 100 classified documents — that would leave a gaping hole in the heart of the case.

Gag-tracker

Cannon also held a hearing on special counsel Jack Smith’s request to modify the conditions of Trump’s release to bar him from making any further pointed criticism of the FBI agents who worked on his case. While not technically a gag order, Smith’s request, if granted, would function similarly, with the additional danger for Trump that a violation could result in him being sent to jail, as opposed to a fine.

But the hearing did not go well for the prosecutors. Cannon sounded skeptical that they could draw a direct line between Trump’s social media posts and the dangerous, threatening conduct of some of his supporters. She has yet to rule on the issue.

Separately, the judge overseeing Trump’s New York case loosened the restrictions of his gag order in that case (more on that below).

Nerd word of the week

Spoliation: One of those words that even veteran lawyers sometimes struggle to pronounce correctly, spoliation is the destruction of evidence. In the Florida classified documents case, the special counsel filed court papers last week pushing back against Trump’s claim that the case should be thrown out because FBI agents did not preserve the precise order of documents and other items found in boxes at Mar-a-Lago. That amounts to spoliation, the defense claims, and should result in the dismissal of the charges against Trump.

Prosecutors called that argument absurd, noting not only that Trump’s boxes were a seemingly disorganized mess, but that the legal standard for a spoliation claim is quite high — judges typically have to be convinced the evidence destruction was both intentional and consequential. Cannon has yet to decide whether to hold a hearing on the issue.

2. D.C.: Federal case on 2020 election

The details: Four counts related to conspiring to obstruct the 2020 election results.

Planned trial date: Unclear (was March 4, but that’s been delayed)

Last week: U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan waited one last week for guidance from the nation’s highest court. The pretrial proceedings in the case have been frozen since appeals courts began reviewing the question of immunity, and Monday’s Supreme Court decision could give Chutkan a green light to press ahead toward trial.

3. New York: State hush money case

The details: 34 charges connected to a 2016 hush money payment.

Verdict: Guilty. Sentencing is scheduled for July 11.

Last week: New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan lifted some of the restrictions in Trump’s gag order. Merchan said Trump can talk about witnesses like his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen and porn actor Stormy Daniels. The judge said he would like to keep barring Trump from talking about the jurors, but concluded the law did not allow him to do that.

Under the looser restrictions of the gag order, Trump is still prohibited from talking about court staffers, the prosecution team and their families until he is sentenced on July 11. Trump is allowed to comment on the judge himself and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office prosecuted the case.

4. Georgia: State case on 2020 election

The details: Trump faces 10 state charges for allegedly trying to undo the election results in that state. Four of his 18 co-defendants have pleaded guilty.

Planned trial date: None yet (Case paused while awaiting an appeals ruling)

Last week: All quiet.

Question Time

Q. If Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis recused herself from the Georgia case, could her office proceed with it without waiting for a ruling from Georgia’s high court?

A. Probably not. For one thing, when Willis recused herself from an unrelated high-profile case early in her tenure as district attorney, the recusal applied to her entire office. For another, it’s hard to imagine the defendants who have appealed the disqualification question would simply concede the issue and agree to go to trial; they would likely bring up that it was Willis who oversaw the investigation and indictment of Trump and was behind every key decision in the case.

Thanks for catching up with us. You can find past issues here.

Suggested Reading

Justices strike obstruction charge for Jan. 6 defendant

Judge Cannon skeptical of Trump claims FBI mishandled Mar-a-Lago search

Inside the battle to release controversial Trump movie

Special counsel falters in push to limit Trump’s attacks on FBI agents

Judge Cannon presses for details of attorney general’s role in Trump investigation