Trump’s federal election prosecution isn’t going to trial anytime soon. But it could still produce damaging revelations before Nov. 5.

Special counsel Jack Smith and Donald Trump will be trading high-stakes legal filings — some potentially jammed with new and explosive evidence related to Trump’s effort to subvert the 2020 election — in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

A federal judge has given the special counsel’s team until Sept. 26 to detail what his team says will be a “comprehensive” slate of evidence detailing Trump’s alleged conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election.

A trial in the case, however, appears a long way off. The case had originally been slated to go to trial in March of this year, but it was delayed by litigation that wound up at the Supreme Court over Trump’s claims that he has immunity from the charges because they involve actions he says he took as president.

Now that the Supreme Court has returned the case to the trial court, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan released a schedule Thursday for next steps. She largely agreed with a proposal a lawyer from Smith’s office laid out earlier in the day to have prosecutors kick off the next round of proceedings by making a detailed submission about what proof they want to present of Trump’s guilt if the case goes to trial.

Chutkan described Smith’s submission as an “opening brief” intended to support his argument that Trump is not immune from the criminal charges, despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the matter . Trump’s response to that brief will be due Oct. 17, and his lawyers similarly promised to pack it full of new information drawn from secret grand jury transcripts and other unreleased documents.

Smith will have the opportunity for a final reply on the presidential immunity issue Oct. 29 — one week before Election Day.

The prospect of damaging new information related to Trump’s effort to subvert the previous presidential election emerging in the closing days of the 2024 race adds a new, unpredictable element to the campaign’s final stretch — the definition of an October surprise. But it’s not yet clear how much of the filings the public will see: Chutkan could order redactions to some of the sensitive information that Smith or Trump seek to include in their briefs. But any revelations are likely to draw significant attention just as millions of voters are casting early ballots.

One silver lining for Trump in the schedule is that it seems exceedingly unlikely to result in any other public hearings in the case before Election Day. In Chutkan’s order Thursday, the Obama appointee did not indicate whether she plans to have such a hearing or will rule based solely on the legal briefs and exhibits. But the deadlines for the briefs suggest that any potential hearing would occur after Election Day.

The revised schedule also underscores the impossibility of a trial taking place until well into 2025. Chutkan and lawyers for both sides agreed that her ruling on immunity issues would result in an appeal that would again likely freeze the case for months. Chutkan said at a hearing earlier Thursday that trying to set a trial date under those circumstances would be “an exercise in futility.”

During the hearing, Trump attorney John Lauro called the prospect of such filings amid the final weeks of the election deeply unfair. And Trump’s team warned that if the judge allows the prosecution to air previously unseen evidence, they will demand the opportunity to do the same with revelations that they claim would help exonerate the former president.

Chutkan rejected Lauro’s complaints, insisting that she would not tether her efforts to advance the case to the political calendar.

Indeed, her new schedule includes several other deadlines that will brush up against Election Day and beyond. For example, Chutkan is also setting an Oct. 24 deadline for Trump to challenge the validity of Smith’s appointment, with a response from Smith by Oct. 31 and a reply from Trump’s team by Nov. 7.

The timing of events and deadlines in the case is being closely watched not only for its potential impact on the current presidential contest but also because if Trump wins the race he will likely be able to shut down the case — or the Justice Department will drop it under longstanding policy barring federal prosecution of sitting presidents.