Federal Judge Aileen Cannon has dramatically dismissed the classified documents case against Donald Trump in a bombshell ruling less than 48 hours after he was shot.
The former president was accused of taking highly sensitive national security documents to Mar-a-Lago when he left the White House, and FBI agents seized a trove of material during a search of his Florida home in August 2022.
Judge Cannon threw the case out based on ‘violations’ of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and Appropriations Clause.
She claimed the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutional.
The decision has an enormous impact on Trump’s legal battles, and he now faces just two criminal trials in Georgia and federal court in Washington D.C. A year ago, his classified documents case appeared to be his most serious legal threat: perhaps easier to prove that Trump’s January 6 case, which relied on public statements, tweets, and complex schemes involving electors around the country to charge a complex conspiracy to overturn the election.
The documents case, by contrast, followed a series of prosecutions of high level officials relying mostly on the discovery of materials in their possession.
Trump is waiting to be sentenced in New York after he was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records – with a sentencing date that was itself delayed after the Supreme Court issued a complex ruling on Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution on official acts taken as president.
The classified documents case against Donald Trump has been dismissed by a federal judge.
‘I am thrilled that a judge had the courage and wisdom to do this,’ Trump told Fox News as he prepares to rally Republicans at his convention. ‘This has big, big implications — not just for this case but for other cases…it only makes this convention more positive,’ he said.
‘Upon careful study of the foundational challenges raised in the Motion, the Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s Smith’s prosecution of this action breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme—the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers, and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law,’ Cannon wrote.
The bombshell ruling comes hours before the Republican National Convention is set to gavel in Monday, with Trump flying in Sunday to stage a heroic return from an assassination attempt.
Cannon’s ruling stunned legal observers, although she had revealed skepticism of the government’s position during a hearing on Trump’s claim that the special counsel’s appointment was unfounded.
The ruling by the Trump-appointed judge comes amid complaints among Trump’s critics in legal circles that she took a long time making a series of procedural decisions that had the effect of stalling the case until the after the elections.
One of her recent decisions was to suspend a May trial date she had set months earlier amid disputes over evidence of classified national security documents.
The Justice Department could try to appeal the decision, having previously gotten an appeals court panel to overturn decisions by Cannon.
It also has the option of having the U.S. Attorney in the southern district of Florida – a Sernate-confirmed official – to file the case.
In December, the 11th Circuit vacated Judge Cannon’s ruling to appoint a special master who pored over classified materials seized from Mar-a-Lago in the case.
Cannon was able to draw support from a concurring opinion issued by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion in Trump’s push for immunity from prosecution. The DOJ had argued it didn’t have bearing on the documents case.
Judge Aileen issued her ruling two days after Trump was shot and as the Republican convention is set to gavel-in, a few weeks after Trump’s lawyers challenged the constitutionality of Jack Smith’s appointment
FBI agents seized boxes of materials marked classified from Trump’s Florida club
Some of the documents removed from the White House were found in closets, storage areas, and even a bathroom used for storage
The ruling leaves it up to prosecutors to decide whether to appeal the ruling
Trump has long attacked the special counsel, calling Jack Smith ‘deranged,’ and blasted the FBI search of his home
AG Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel, in a move intended to insulate his own office from prosecuting President Biden’s rival
‘If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,’ Thomas wrote.
In her 93-page ruling, Cannon ruled that the appointed of officers such as a special counsel reside in Congress, not the executive.
Attorney General Merrick Garland designated the special counsel in a move intended to provide isolation from charges of political interference had his office prosecuted the case directly. But Cannon was unpersuaded that authority existed, although special counsels have been used in a variety of high profile probes over the years.
‘The Framers gave Congress a pivotal role in the appointment of principal and inferior officers. That role cannot be usurped by the Executive Branch or diffused elsewhere—whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not. In the case of inferior officers, that means that Congress is empowered to decide if it wishes to vest appointment power in a Head of Department, and indeed, Congress has proven itself quite capable of doing so in many other statutory contexts,’ she wrote.
Judge Cannon was not persuaded by the DOJ’s invoking past special counsels – such as Robert Mueller, who headed the Russia probe, or David Weiss, who handled the Hunter Biden probe and who was able to remain despite filings by Hunter Biden’s counsel.
Both Mueller and Weiss had been Senate-confirmed, albeit to different posts.
‘In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing “regulatory” special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny,’ Cannon wrote.
‘Perhaps this can be traced back to reliance on stray dictum in Nixon that perpetuated in subsequent cases. Perhaps it can be justified practically by the urgency of national crises. Or perhaps it can be explained by the relative infrequency of these types of investigations, by congressional inattention, or by the important roles that special-counsel-like figures have played in our country’s history. Regardless of the explanation, the present Motion requires careful analysis of the statutory landscape to ensure compliance with the Constitution, and the Court has endeavored to do so with care.’
More to follow
