Following bombshell court filing, what’s next in Trump’s election interference case?

Special counsel Jack Smith’s bombshell filing that was unsealed Wednesday in his federal election interference case against former President Donald Trump was just the opening salvo in what could be a protracted legal battle over what conduct prosecutors will be able to ultimately use against Trump as evidence should the case go to trial.

Smith’s 165-page brief lays out in extensive detail Trump’s alleged conduct that Smith argues was carried out in the former president’s private capacity as a candidate, which he argues should not be protected under the Supreme Court’s July ruling that granted presidents absolute immunity through exercising their core official duties.

Trump’s attorneys, who previously were vocal in their opposition to Smith being able to file the extended immunity brief, will now have an opportunity to make their own case advocating Trump’s immunity from prosecution in an effort to have each of the four charges against him dismissed.

The reply from Trump’s lawyers was previously due on Oct. 17 — though in a filing late Wednesday night, Trump’s attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to grant them a five-week extension to file an oversized brief of similar size to the one filed by Smith.

Judge Chutkan on Thursday partly granted Trump’s request, giving him until Nov. 7 to file his reply, and giving Smith’s office until Nov. 21 to respond to Trump’s filing.

Separately, Trump’s team faces a deadline of next Thursday to file any objections to redactions proposed by Smith to a lengthy appendix of exhibits that accompanied his immunity motion unsealed Wednesday. A previous filing from Smith indicated the redactions to the appendix were much more extensive than those in the immunity motion itself, so it’s not entirely clear the extent of new evidence that would come to light should Judge Chutkan similarly make that appendix public.

Once all of the immunity arguments are filed, it will be up to Judge Chutkan to begin an exhaustive process of reaching individual determinations on whether Trump’s conduct, as cited by the special counsel, qualifies as official or unofficial acts.

It’s possible that Chutkan could demand further briefings from the special counsel or Trump’s attorneys — or seek a hearing where each side would be able to debate their conflicting positions.

A year after Trump pleaded not guilty to federal charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the election results in order to remain in power, Smith in August filed a pared-down indictment that removed allegations likely to have been considered official acts, after the Supreme Court ruled that Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken while in office. On Wednesday, Judge Chutkan released a public version of the extensive brief Smith filed in support of his superseding indictment.

In response to the filing, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung called the case against the former president “a partisan, Unconstitutional Witch Hunt that should be dismissed entirely.”