On November 25, Special Counsel Jack Smith moved to dismiss both federal cases pending against President Trump: the election-interference case pending in district court in Washington, D.C., and the case relating to classified documents whose dismissal is currently on appeal before the 11th Circuit.

Three observations about the motions to dismiss:

1.  The tone of the filings convey a dedication to following DOJ policies and norms. They present as a straightforward application of rulings from the Office of Legal Counsel and reflect deference to OLC's opinion and effectively convey that these decisions were not the result of political calculations or influence.
    
2. If granted, both dismissals would be without prejudice. Thus, the Special Counsel has left open the door to refiling the cases at a later date. In particular, Smith's filing in the election interference case notes the possibility of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. In other words, the DOJ could try to revive the prosecution after President-Elect Trump leaves office, even if the statute of limitations for the charges (five years for the charges in the election interference case) has run. Note: such an effort would likely not run afoul of the Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. 3161), but could face a constitutional speedy trial challenge.
    
3. The motion to dismiss the election interference case is six pages. While a six-page brief may seem like a short filing, motions to dismiss—particularly unopposed motions to dismiss without prejudice—are often one to two pages at most. The length and detail, of course, reflect the significance of the case, but also suggest an effort to put down markers such as (1) the lack of political influence in this decision; (2) the government's belief in the strength of the case; and (3) the possibility of reviving the cases in the future.