'Ball is in Chutkan’s court' after latest request from Jack Smith and Donald Trump

In a stunning decision issued by the majority conservative US Supreme Court last month, the High Court ruled in favor of Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election through inciting an insurrection.

The Hill's Rebecca Beitsch explained Thursday that now "the case is back in [Judge Tanya] Chutkan's hands after the Supreme Court formally sent it back to the lower courts after providing Trump a victory in determining that as a former president, he maintains broad immunity from criminal prosecution. That ended a roughly eight-month pause in the case, and Chutkan has made clear the hiatus is over."

Now, POLITICO'S Kyle Cheney reports via X: "Jack Smith asks for (and Trump doesn’t oppose) a three week delay as they consider the impact of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling on Trump’s criminal case in D.C. The ball is now in Chutkan’s court."

READ MORE: Chutkan slams Trump in latest ruling rejecting immunity argument: No 'divine right of kings'

Smith's filing reads: "The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States, including through consultation with other Department of Justice components."

It continues, "Although those consultations are well underway, the Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision. The Government therefore respectfully requests additional time to provide the Court with an informed proposal regarding the schedule for pretrial proceedings moving forward. The defense does not object to the Government's request for an extension.'"

Cheney adds that "Chutkan and the DC Circuit seemed ready to move quickly, so there’s a bit of a hurry-up-and-wait sense here. Also seems to put a crimp in the notion pushed by some Smith supporters of a pre-election 'mini-trial.'"

In a New York Times op-ed published Thursday, editorial board member Jesse Wegman notes that a mini-trial would allow Smith's team "to be able to present some of its evidence in open court." He adds, "It’s a far cry from an actual jury trial — which could and should have taken place months ago and surely would have if the defendant was not named Trump — but at this point it’s the only chance the American people will have to get more clarity on the details of the former president’s role in the Jan. 6 insurrection."

READ MORE: Legal expert details Jack Smith’s 'silver lining' in SCOTUS immunity ruling