Federal Judge Rejects Trump’s Emergency Bid to Halt Trial, Rebuking Legal Team for “Bad-Faith” Tactics

Washington — Former President Donald J. Trump suffered one of the sharpest legal setbacks of his career on Monday when a federal judge overseeing his criminal trial issued a sweeping, 47-page opinion rejecting an emergency motion from his lawyers and sharply criticizing what she described as an attempt to delay proceedings through unfounded allegations.

The ruling, from Judge Sarah Chen of the U.S. District Court, denied a late-night request from Mr. Trump to suspend the trial and declare a mistrial based on claims of prosecutorial misconduct, jury contamination and judicial bias. The judge not only rejected each assertion but suggested that the motion itself may have been filed in bad faith.

In unusually direct language for a federal jurist, Judge Chen wrote that the emergency filing — submitted at 11:47 p.m. on Sunday and spanning 183 pages with exhibits — “misstated facts, misapplied law, and appears designed primarily to secure delay rather than address any legitimate threat of irreparable harm.” She added that some allegations “bordered on the frivolous” and warned that repeated misuse of emergency motions could result in sanctions.

At an 8 a.m. hearing Monday, prosecutors dismantled the defense’s claims point by point. They argued that routine witness preparation had been mischaracterized as improper coaching, that jurors had consistently reported no exposure to prejudicial coverage, and that the examples of purported judicial bias cited by the defense reflected ordinary trial management and legally grounded rulings.

Prosecutors then introduced phone records indicating that a member of Mr. Trump’s legal team had communicated with reporters shortly before news stories appeared that the defense later cited as evidence of jury contamination. The disclosure, which startled the courtroom, appeared to undermine the motion’s central claim that prejudicial media coverage was beyond the defense’s control.

Judge Chen addressed the issue directly in her written opinion, stating that the defense had “not fully disclosed its own role in creating the circumstances it now presents as grounds for emergency relief.”

The confrontation marked a turning point in a trial already defined by contentious exchanges and repeated procedural clashes. Since opening statements, prosecutors have introduced a steady stream of documents, recordings and witness testimony that legal analysts across the political spectrum have described as formidable. The defense has struggled to counter the evidence and has increasingly relied on procedural challenges to slow the pace of the proceedings.

Mr. Trump reacted publicly within hours of the ruling, posting a series of attacks on Judge Chen on his social media platform and accusing her of bias. By Monday afternoon, the judge issued an order requiring the defense to explain why the former president should not be held in contempt for “statements that could potentially interfere with the administration of justice.”

The contempt hearing is scheduled for later this week and could carry significant consequences, including fines or restrictions on Mr. Trump’s conduct during trial.

Legal experts noted that Judge Chen’s written opinion may reverberate beyond the current case. By documenting what she described as a pattern of delay and misrepresentation, the ruling could serve as a reference point for judges in other Trump-related proceedings and limit the effectiveness of similar emergency tactics in the future.

For now, the trial continues uninterrupted — and with a clearer indication that the court intends to keep it on schedule.