In a pivotal hearing on Thursday regarding the federal election subversion case against Donald Trump, Judge Tanya Chutkan outlined her preliminary views on how the case should progress, though she did not finalize a schedule for upcoming proceedings. This was the first hearing since the Supreme Court granted Trump some immunity, raising questions about how the case will unfold.

During the one-hour-and-15-minute session, Judge Chutkan expressed skepticism toward Trump’s legal team’s request to first determine whether allegations involving former Vice President Mike Pence were covered by immunity. Chutkan emphasized her authority to structure the case proceedings and stressed that she would move forward based on her discretion.

The hearing focused primarily on procedural matters rather than substantive rulings. Prosecutors, led by Thomas Windom, sought permission to file an opening brief arguing that their new indictment aligns with the Supreme Court’s immunity decision. Trump’s attorneys opposed this request, advocating for a more extended schedule. Chutkan urged Windom to provide a timeline for filing the brief, which he estimated would take two to three weeks, potentially by the end of September.

A significant point of contention arose when Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, and Judge Chutkan discussed the looming 2024 presidential election. Lauro expressed concerns that the timing of court proceedings could impact the election, but Chutkan firmly stated, “I am talking about a four-count indictment,” dismissing suggestions that the election timeline should influence the case.

Chutkan acknowledged that setting a trial date at this stage would be premature, given the likelihood of appeals once she makes decisions on immunity. Both parties concurred that a trial date should not be established yet. Chutkan indicated she would issue an order outlining the next steps in the case, possibly later on Thursday.

In addition to procedural debates, Chutkan appeared unconvinced by Trump’s argument that addressing the Pence-related allegations first would be more efficient. Trump’s team argued that a ruling on the Pence issue alone could potentially dismiss the entire case, but Chutkan dismissed this notion, suggesting that such an approach might not be justified.

Furthermore, Chutkan expressed doubt about Trump’s upcoming attempt to challenge the legality of special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment, suggesting that a recent ruling by Judge Aileen Cannon dismissing a similar case was not particularly persuasive. Chutkan noted that established precedents upholding the constitutionality of special counsels would guide her decisions.

As the case continues, Chutkan’s comments indicate that she remains focused on legal principles and procedural integrity, rather than political considerations or external pressures.

A new survey by the Centre for Cities reveals that younger Londoners are leading the way in returning to office work, while older workers’ preference for remote work is contributing to the UK’s lag behind global competitors.

The survey, which analyzed work habits across London, Paris, New York, Sydney, Singapore, and Toronto, found that London has the second-lowest rate of office attendance, ahead of Toronto but behind Paris, which recorded the highest attendance.

Young workers in London, aged 18 to 24, are heading to the office an average of 3.1 days per week. In contrast, those aged 35 to 44 average 2.5 days, and those aged 55 and over average 2.7 days. This indicates a clear trend: younger employees are more inclined to work from the office compared to their older counterparts.

The survey also highlights that 43% of Gen Z workers in London believe they work best in the office, while only 25% prefer remote work. This preference may be influenced by constraints in home workspace and privacy for younger workers.

Andrew Carter, Chief Executive of the Centre for Cities, challenged prevailing assumptions about work habits, stating, “The standard narrative is that young workers are shirking, but in reality, they are more present in the office. It’s the middle-aged or more experienced workers who are less inclined to return.”

Despite 95% of workers acknowledging the benefits of office attendance, such as improved collaboration and relationship building, overall office presence remains below pre-pandemic levels in all cities surveyed.

The UK government is promoting more flexible working arrangements, including a proposed four-day workweek. However, only 29% of workers aged 34 to 44 and those over 55 feel they are most productive in the office.

Carter noted the differences in home working setups, saying, “The appeal of working at the kitchen table among others is vastly different from the luxury of a dedicated home office, which is more common among older workers.”

He emphasized the importance of face-to-face interaction, particularly for younger employees, stating, “City centre offices offer diverse activities and experiences that are crucial for both personal success and the success of businesses.”

Office attendance requirements have tightened, with only 7% of workers now having no mandate to be in the office at least once a week, down from 25% just over a year ago. The trend towards stricter office mandates may persist, as only 9% of workers would consider leaving their jobs if employers increased attendance requirements.

To encourage return to the office, the Centre for Cities suggests that employers could subsidize commuting costs, a strategy reportedly used by some firms in Paris. Additionally, the government might consider reviving Transport for London’s off-peak Friday fare trial.

“The question is whether the government, the Mayor of London, and businesses can collaborate effectively,” Carter mused. “Enhancing face-to-face interaction could benefit the national economy. London has significant advantages, including world-class public transport and a deep labor market. Encouraging more office attendance in line with global cities will help London maintain its crucial national and international roles.”