NEWARK -- The lane closures at the George Washington Bridge that resulted in the 2013 "Bridgegate" scandal may have caused "improperly created traffic," but doing so did not violate anyone's constitutional rights, a brief filed late Wednesday by one of the defendants says.

Attorney Michael Critchley, representing Bridget Anne Kelly, ex-deputy chief of staff for Gov. Chris Christie, argued that the inconvenience to motorists caused by cutting off Fort Lee's access to some traffic lanes at the bridge did not amount to a federal crime.

"At what point does the inconvenience become a federal crime?" he asked. "Does the inconvenience associated with adjusting the access lanes from three to two constitute a violation of the as-of-yet recognized constitutional right to be free from inconvenience?"

The filing, along with one from lawyers for Bill Baroni, former deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is the latest effort to dismiss the federal charges filed against them about a year ago for allegedly planning and executing the lane closures as a way to punish Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich for failing to endorse Christie's re-election.

Since the right to be free from improperly created traffic is not "clearly established," Critchley argued, the defendants did not have "fair notice" that what they were doing could be illegal. By that measure, several counts of the indictment against Kelly should be dismissed as a matter of law, the brief says.

Critchley's brief also attacked U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman's argument that a federal anti-corruption statute could be cited against the defendants, with Critchley saying the prosecutors' argument is in "completely uncharted water." Instead, the filing says, the law is intended as an anti-bribery and theft statute, and neither Kelly nor Baroni profited from the lane closures.

"The only purported 'benefit' that Ms. Kelly received was the alleged 'pleasure' of punishing Mayor Sokolich by creating traffic in Fort Lee," Critchley said.

In a separate brief, Baroni's lawyers Michael Baldassare and Jennifer Mara also sought dismissal of the charges, saying there is no constitutional right to travel on roadways free of restrictions, and that they had no "fair warning" that their alleged acts might be unlawful.

The bulk of Baroni's argument, however, was that his constitutional rights were violated. Baldassare and Mara charged that prosecutors used "immunized" testimony that Baroni gave in hearings in Trenton as the basis for the charges against him -- even though he was not sworn in at the hearings.

Courts have "overwhelmingly found" that legislative committee witnesses could not be prosecuted for their testimony even if they were not subpoenaed or sworn in before testifying, the filing said.

The brief asks U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton to order a hearing at which the government would have the "heavy burden" of showing that the documents Baroni produced in the hearing were not the sole source of any allegations in his indictment.

Baroni's rights to due process also has been violated, the brief says, by the "fundamentally unfair" treatment afforded to the defendants as opposed to a hands-off approach toward Gibson Dunn & Crutcher -- the law firm hired by Christie that issued a report exonerating him from responsibility for Bridgegate.

The next step in the case will have the government and the defendants meet April 28 in federal court for more oral arguments and scheduling.

The trial is now scheduled to start Sept. 12.

Besides Baroni and Kelly, former Port Authority official David Wildstein also was charged in the lane closure conspiracy. He pleaded guilty last year.

Also Wednesday, Gibson Dunn attorney Randy Mastro, representing the governor's office, filed a request asking for two extra weeks to provide materials subpoenaed by Baroni's and Kelly's lawyers. Wigenton earlier this year allowed the defendants to subpoena Gibson Dunn, which produced its Bridgegate report without any supporting notes, for more information.

Two more weeks would move the deadline for producing the materials to April 28, a move that Mastro said the defendants agreed to, but is not supported by federal prosecutors.

Mastro, in the letter, said the subpoenas were "overbroad," asking for far more materials than the government, adding that some of the documents should be kept private because they touch on non-public matters.

Tim Darragh may be reached at tdarragh@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @timdarragh. Find NJ.com on Facebook.