Donald Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts in the New York hush money case—but there’s a lengthy appeals process ahead. And what ever happened to the other three cases against him: Jack Smith’s federal election interference and classified documents cases and Fani Willis’ Georgia election interference case? All three have hit various roadblocks. To make it easier to follow Trump’s ongoing legal entanglements, each Monday we’ll give you updates on the latest developments in Keeping Up With the Trump Trials. 

Programming note: Keeping Up will be taking a brief summer hiatus next week but returning Monday, July 1. 

All eyes are on the Supreme Court as the justices are expected, any day now, to release their opinion on whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in his federal election interference case. Meanwhile, Judge Aileen Cannon rejected an attempt by the former president’s attorneys to dismiss the classified documents indictment. Over in Washington, House Speaker Mike Johnson has been busy having private conversations with Trump over his criminal conviction.

Judge Aileen Cannon turned down a motion from Trump’s defense team to dismiss special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case, but at the same time, she agreed to strike one paragraph from Smith’s indictment that she found “legally unnecessary.”

The paragraph was about a meeting Trump had had in August or September 2021 in which he allegedly said that an ongoing U.S. military operation was not going well and proceeded to show a classified map that depicted where the operation was happening. Trump disclosed this information to a person, who is identified merely as “PAC Representative” but is presumed to be Susie Wiles, a conservative political strategist—Politico has called her “the most feared and least known political operative in America.”

Trump’s attorneys requested that a series of allegations included in Smith’s indictment be removed, and after reviewing them all, Cannon obliged on this one, though it will not affect any of Trump’s charges. She criticized Smith for creating a speaking indictment, i.e., an overly descriptive charging document, that included “various nonessential allegations more akin to a narrative about the government’s theory of prosecution.”

Smith is likely waiting with bated breath to see how the Supreme Court rules on the question of whether the former president enjoys presidential immunity and whether his federal election interference prosecution can move forward.

Through the month of June and likely into early July, the court will issue decisions every week for its 2023–24 term, and Trump’s presidential immunity case is one of the most consequential rulings expected. During oral arguments back in April, the justices seemed poised to give the former president a big win, with Samuel Alito suggesting that total presidential immunity is required for “the functioning of a stable democratic society.” Meanwhile, Trump’s attorney argued that the “presidency as we know it” would be over if presidents are not granted immunity from criminal charges, and an attorney for Smith’s office argued that SCOTUS has never before recognized absolute presidential immunity.

Depending on how the court rules, the case could end up getting kicked back down to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or to D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. It’s almost certain that the election interference case won’t go to trial before the November election.

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who oversaw Trump’s hush money trial, earlier this year placed the former president under a gag order that limited what he could say publicly about prosecutors, witnesses, and members of the jury. Now that the trial is over, Trump’s attorneys want the gag lifted.

“Trump’s opponents and adversaries are using the Gag Order as a political sword to attack President Trump with reference to this case, on the understanding that his ability to mount a detailed response is severely restricted by the Gag Order,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in a court filing to Merchan.

They equate the gag order to an “extraordinary, unprecedented, and unwarranted restriction” on Trump’s free speech rights and, given that the hush money trial is over, argue that there’s no need for it any longer. However, prosecutors for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg want the gag order to stay in place until at least July 11, when Trump is due to be sentenced, suggesting that it’s necessary in order to “protect the integrity of these proceedings and the fair administration of justice.”

Since the former president became a convicted felon about two weeks ago, he’s been busy trying to undo the Manhattan jury’s verdict, and, according to unnamed sources who spoke to Politico, this included petitioning GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson to leverage his power in Congress.

The speaker has shown he’s an ally to Trump, attending his hush money trial. Shortly after the jury found the former president guilty, Johnson went on Fox News and urged the Supreme Court to intervene and “set this straight.” The two have also been in frequent contact, according to Politico, about creating a pathway for House Republicans to somehow overturn Trump’s felony conviction. (Trump allegedly said, “We have to overturn this.”)

However, Johnson doesn’t exactly have House Republicans in his pocket. The GOP holds just a razor-thin majority, and Johnson was nearly ousted from the speakership by his fellow Freedom Caucus members last month. It’s not clear how Republicans in Congress would get Trump’s conviction overturned, though they have introduced legislation that would allow presidents to transfer state-level prosecutions to federal courts, and the Judiciary Committee is considering how to target Smith, who is leading the charge in two separate criminal indictments of Trump.