In a significant legal development, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, appointed by former President Donald Trump, has dismissed the case against him regarding the handling of classified documents. The ruling, issued in a comprehensive 93-page order on Monday, declared the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith as illegal, leading to the immediate closure of the case.
The ruling was issued during the first day of the Republican National Convention and in the wake of a recent attempt on Trump’s life. These events have increased the political and security implications of the case.
Upon learning of the decision, Trump released a statement conveying his surprise and satisfaction while highlighting the outcome’s connection to the various legal challenges he is currently facing. Additionally, a source close to Trump shared that he was “very happy” with Judge Cannon’s decision.
Smith’s legal team didn’t waste a moment before declaring their intention to appeal Judge Cannon’s decision, making it clear they vehemently disagreed with the court’s interpretation of the Attorney General’s authority to appoint special counsels. Peter Carr, the spokesperson for Smith, didn’t hold back in his criticism, bluntly stating, “The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts.”
The appeal will be sent to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where it will be heard, and oral arguments are expected. Despite the possibility of expedited proceedings and a reversal of Cannon’s decision by the appeals court, Monday’s ruling virtually guarantees that the classified documents case will not proceed to trial before the election.
Christopher Kise, a legal representative for former President Trump, lauded Judge Cannon’s ruling as a pivotal step in reinstating the Constitution’s fundamental principles. Kise argued that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s assignment of Smith as special counsel in November 2022 surpassed the limits of statutory authority, aligning with Trump’s position that such appointments should undergo Senate confirmation.
The legal dispute centered on whether Smith, a private citizen and political ally, had the legal standing to prosecute Trump over allegations related to classified documents and efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results. In February, Trump’s legal team argued in court filings that the appointments clause of the Constitution does not allow the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen and political ally like Jack Smith to wield federal prosecutorial power without Senate confirmation. Therefore, they contended that Smith lacked the authority to prosecute this case.
Judge Cannon’s ruling departed from precedents set by previous special counsel appointments, such as Robert Mueller’s investigation in the 2016 election regarding Russian interference.
According to Cannon, Special Counsel Smith has exercised authority since November 2022, which she deemed illegitimate. In her ruling, she stated that all subsequent actions stemming from this flawed appointment, including pursuing the “Superseding Indictment” central to the case, constituted an unlawful exercise of executive power.
The ruling’s immediate impact stretched beyond Trump’s situation, potentially affecting other legal cases involving prominent figures such as Hunter Biden. Cannon’s decision clearly distinguished between Smith’s and Weiss’s appointments. Cannon noted that Smith was a private citizen at the time of appointment, while Weiss already held the position of U.S. attorney.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have also added complexity to the legal environment surrounding Trump’s activities since leaving office. One notable ruling granted Trump immunity for certain actions taken while he was president, influencing ongoing cases, including state-level charges connected to allegations of election interference.
In March, Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York. His sentencing was originally scheduled for last week. However, the judge in the case postponed sentencing until at least September following a motion from Trump’s legal team, who argued for the conviction to be overturned, citing the recent immunity ruling. They pointed out that some trial evidence pertained to Trump’s official actions while in the White House.
In a concurring opinion with the 6-3 conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns about Smith’s appointment as special counsel potentially violating constitutional provisions on appointment power. Thomas emphasized that without a legal basis for the Special Counsel’s office, prosecuting anyone, especially a former President, could be constitutionally problematic. Cannon referenced Thomas’s opinion three times in her ruling.
The path forward remains uncertain as Smith’s legal team prepares to appeal to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the implications of Judge Cannon’s ruling will continue reverberating through legal and political circles, shaping debates on presidential accountability and the limits of executive authority in the United States.
