Hi, and welcome to Trump Watch! This reporter is on week two of working from home, and is grateful for investing in a convertible standing desk and for her (fenced-in) backyard. Tell me how you're coping with work from home at [email protected], and follow me on Twitter at @jacq_thomsen for breaking news updates.

Only A Pandemic Could Slow Down These Trump Lawsuits

The coronavirus pandemic has shuttered courthouses across the nation, guaranteeing that major Trump administration legal battles will drag on for longer than expected.

The U.S. Supreme Court took the rare step of cancelling its March arguments, including the two cases over third-party subpoenas from Congress and the Manhattan DA for President Trump's financial records. There's no word on when those arguments will be held, but it gives Trump's attorney Will Consovoy and House lawyer Doug Letter more time to prep!

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also postponed all of its upcoming oral arguments, including the en banc rehearing it just granted in the cases over Don McGahn's testimony and the challenge to Trump's diversion of military funds for border wall construction. Those arguments were set to be held on April 28.

The effects of coronavirus are even trickling into the more technical parts of having an appeal at the D.C. Circuit: On Wednesday, the House filed a motion to extend the deadline for lawyers to file paper copies of their previously filed materials, as well as the paper copies of their supplemental briefs for the case. The DOJ joined in the motion for the briefs. The request wouldn't impact the deadlines to file their briefs with the court electronically.

"In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to minimize personal contact, reduce the possibility of exposure, and slow community spread, the House parties seek an extension of time to prepare and file additional copies of their previous filings, and all parties seek an extension of time to file paper copies of the supplemental briefs," Wednesday's motion reads.

The House is also asking the D.C. Circuit for an extension over its appeal of a ruling requiring lawmakers to notify Trump if they request his state tax returns under a New York law.

On Wednesday, the lawyers asked the appeals court for an extra 30 days to file its opening brief, citing its other deadlines in the en banc cases and preparation for the Supreme Court arguments.

"The Supreme Court has postponed that oral argument because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is uncertain how quickly the argument will be rescheduled," Wednesday's motion reads. "The extension is also necessary given the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Committee Defendants' significant and unanticipated work on pandemic-related issues."

House lawyers, led by Letter, have repeatedly argued in court that its cases must be resolved quickly, so members of Congress can obtain the information and take action before the current session ends.

But the pandemic and resulting public health restrictions has left the congressional lawyers, like so many other attorneys, in a holding pattern.

Other Trump-related lawsuits have also been left in the lurch over COVID-19: Reporter Brian Karem and his attorney, Gibson Dunn's Theodore Boutrous, were supposed to argue before the D.C. Circuit on Monday over the White House's temporary suspension of Karem's White House hard pass.

Boutrous had already asked the court to reschedule the arguments, as he's based in Los Angeles and Gibson Dunn was in the process of transitioning "to a remote-working, restricted travel policy" at the time over the COVID-19 pandemic.

He said both parties "have a strong preference" to argue the case in-person. "That said, the parties also have a strong preference that oral argument be held prior to this Court's summer recess and can be available telephonically or by video, if necessary, in order to ensure that oral argument does not occur after the Court's summer recess," Boutrous wrote.

In a per curiam order issued Thursday, the panel said the case "remains scheduled" for Monday. Seems like they're giving phone arguments a shot!

The D.C. Circuit said in its order freezing all scheduled arguments that it would notify parties if the case will now be decided on the briefs, held telephonically or postponed. And with arguments scheduled through mid-May, and the circuit's regular summer break coming up, getting everything decided on time could be a tight squeeze.

Socially Distancing Your Way To The Polls

Remember the 2020 presidential election? That's still happening—but local officials are going to court to let more people vote from the comfort of their quarantine.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine went to state court to try and delay the Democratic primary scheduled for this past Tuesday, but a Columbus judge shut down that attempt. DeWine then went to state health officials to have them order that polling places be closed, and the state Supreme Court ultimately upheld that effort. That will delay in-person voting in the state until June.

But no state Supreme Court ruling goes unchallenged: The Ohio Democratic Party has now sued the secretary of state for moving the primary date, claiming only the Legislature has that power.

Elsewhere in the Midwest, the Wisconsin Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee sued state election officials to force them to extend the deadline for online voter registration and vote by mail applications. That deadline expired on Wednesday at midnight.

Attorneys at Perkins Coie, the DNC's counsel, filed the complaint in federal court in Wisconsin.

Some states, like Louisiana and Georgia, had delayed their Democratic primaries over the pandemic. But others, like Florida (where every single election has gone smoothly and there's never ever been any issues at all!), pushed forward with the elections, and Joe Biden walked away with the delegates.

What We're Reading

>> 'It's Not Croquet.' In Dropped Mueller Case, Reed Smith's Eric Dubelier Didn't Pull Punches Defending Russian Firm: "The balance was, in looking at the indictment, we believed that the indictment didn't really charge a crime. And we believed that the fact Mueller, the special counsel, brought it, and it didn't charge a crime—a real crime—those were two huge, massively huge legal issues that were going to have to be litigated. And, that is, the legitimacy of the special counsel's office—huge legal issue—and the structure of the indictment." [National Law Journal]

>> Predicting 3-Month Interruption Over COVID-19, Judiciary Requests $7 Million in Emergency Funds: "The federal judiciary is seeking an additional $7 million in emergency supplemental funding from Congress as it anticipates the coronavirus will impact courts for the next three months, the chair of the Judicial Conference's executive committee said Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Claire Eagan of the Northern District of Oklahoma, who chairs the conference's executive committee, told reporters after the Judicial Conference met remotely Tuesday that the judiciary made the request for the supplemental funding Monday. She said that request was 'based on requirements identified as of yesterday, and assuming an interruption of three months in operations.'" [National Law Journal]

>> Hillary Clinton's Appeal Argues No 'Extraordinary Circumstances' Justify Deposition: "Lawyers for Hillary Clinton are appealing a Washington judge's order requiring her to sit for a deposition in a public-records suit that confronted her use of a private email server as the U.S. secretary of state, setting up a fresh test of the high bar that generally blocks lawyers from getting a chance to question current and former top government officials in person….'The general rule against depositions applies to former officials such as Secretary Clinton and Ms. Mills,' [David] Kendall wrote in the new D.C. Circuit filing. 'That is because the rule is intended in part to preserve 'the integrity of the administrative process' by limiting judicial inquiries into an official's reasons for taking official actions.'" [National Law Journal]

>> A Conservative Agenda Unleashed on the Federal Courts: "As Mr. Trump seeks re-election, his rightward overhaul of the federal judiciary — in particular, the highly influential appeals courts — has been invoked as one of his most enduring accomplishments….The review shows that the Trump class of appellate judges, much like the president himself, breaks significantly with the norms set by his Democratic and Republican predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush. The lifetime appointees — who make up more than a quarter of the entire appellate bench — were more openly engaged in causes important to Republicans, such as opposition to gay marriage and to government funding for abortion." [New York Times]

Thanks for reading Trump Watch! We'll be back next week.