Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe federal judge presiding over the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump in Florida dismissed the prosecution on Monday, siding with defense lawyers who said the special counsel who filed the charges was illegally appointed by the Justice Department.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, which can be appealed and may be overruled by a higher court, brings at least for now a stunning and abrupt conclusion to a criminal case that at the time it was filed was widely regarded as the most perilous of all the legal threats the Republican former president confronted.
Though the case had long been stalled, and the prospect of a trial before the November election already was an unrealistic scenario, the judge’s order is a mammoth legal victory for Trump as he recovers from a weekend assassination attempt and prepares to accept the Republican nomination in Milwaukee this week.
In one of four criminal cases against Trump, he had faced dozens of felony counts accusing him of illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back. He had pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing.
Defense lawyers filed multiple challenges to the case, including a legally technical one that asserted that special counsel Jack Smith had been illegally appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause because he was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, rather than being confirmed by Congress, and that his office was improperly funded by the Justice Department.
“The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers,” Cannon wrote in a 93-page order granting a defense request to dismiss the case.
“If the political branches wish to grant the Attorney General power to appoint Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this action with the full powers of a United States Attorney, there is a valid means by which to do so,” she added.
That mechanism is through congressional approval, she said.
The order is the latest example of Cannon, a Trump appointee, handling the case in ways that have benefited the ex-president.
She generated intense scrutiny during the FBI’s investigation when she appointed an independent arbiter to inspect the classified documents recovered during the August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago, a decision that was overturned months later by a unanimous federal appeals panel.
Since then, she has been slow to issue rulings — favoring Trump’s strategy of securing delays — and has entertained defense arguments that experts said other judges would have dismissed without hearings. In May, she indefinitely canceled the trial date amid a series of unresolved legal issues.
Smith’s team had vigorously contested the Appointments Clause argument during hearings before Cannon last month and told the judge that even if she ruled in the defense team’s favor, the proper correction would not be to dismiss the case. Smith’s team had also noted that the position had been rejected in other courts involving other prosecutions brought by other Justice Department special counsels.
But Cannon remained unpersuaded, and she called the prosecution’s claims “strained.”
“Both the Appointments and Appropriations challenges as framed in the Motion raise the following threshold question: is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution?” she said. “After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no.”
A spokesman for the Smith team did not immediately return a request seeking comment on Monday, and the Trump team did not immediately have a comment.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Incompetent, outrageous.
Will be overturned in a heartbeat. With luck they’ll also toss Cannon. Alas, the case won’t be finished, if even started, before the election. If DJT wins, he’ll order the DOJ to drop the case (his primary reason for running). If he loses, and they get a competent, unbiased judge, he’ll be found guilty and maybe serve some time.
Hey IBJ, how do these “experts” know this, how did you validate this!? “and has entertained defense arguments that experts said other judges would have dismissed without hearings.” If all you are going to do is reprint AP opinions and slanted reporting, I see no need to renew my subscription, I can get this trash anywhere online.
AND, let’s not forget that Biden’s classified documents case was dropped because the special prosecutor on his case considered him a “forgetful old man” who shouldn’t be charged!
Rick S., I see your “Incompetent, outrageous” and say that both cases should have never seen a court room. Hillary, Pence, etc. were all found with documents. The only reason Biden was even investigated was because they had already charged Trump and Biden (and Garland) couldn’t just blow it off.
Rod B., IBJ is like virtually all small news outlets that occasionally pick up a piece from a very large, reasonably middle of the road outlet like AP. I suppose you view the AP to be slanted and slanted since it doesn’t align with Fox News, Newsmax, etc. Why bother reading IBJ if it bothers you so much and doesn’t confirm *your* biases? I doubt the IBJ or many readers/ commentators would care if you dropped your IBJ subscription.
Randy, that’s ironic that you state that I am not getting my “biases” confirmed a sentence after stating that the IBJ “will pick up a piece from a very large, reasonably middle of the road outlet like AP”, think you just showed your biases!
I was specifically stating that the coverage was slanted/incredibly unverifiable because of the “experts said” “other judges” “would dismiss” comment that borders on reporting produced by the National Inquirer! Remember those quotes, “friends say”, “co-workers said?”
If the IBJ wants to reprint this shoddy AP reporting, it has, and will continue to lose subscribers. And yes, I doubt the IBJ will care if I don’t renew, but I am not the only one who has complained, and eventually they will.
Did you catch that I said neither Biden or Trump should have been charged!? At least I can see the issue from both sides unlike most of the commentators here.
Rod: the “somebody else did it too” defense didn’t work when your mom asked you as a child: “if someone jumped off a roof, would you do it too?” It doesn’t fly now, either.
Clinton and Biden were not president when the documents in question, in their possession, were misplaced. The difference is even more stark: in terms of carelessness and volume, the comparisons are not appropriate.
It is perhaps reasonable to assume, that the transfer of thousands of documents from a departing president’s White House file, to his home…a few might get misplaced. The Archives, governor of this process, asked Mr. Trump three separate times, in writing and via lawyers, if he’d transferred all docs to them as required by law. He responded via counsel that he indeed had turned over all docs. It was only when he was called out that he said he had returned all docs…then he said he had declassified the docs in question.
1) A departed president cannot declassify anything. 2) All classified documents are the permanent property of the United States. After they’re declassified copies can be requested through the Archives. That process wasn’t documented by Trump prior to this mess.
He’s a mess. This situation is a mess. And it was avoidable.
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html
Rod, do a little googling to see where the AP rests on the left/right spectrum. It’s pretty much smack dab in the middle. That is not up for debate.
And as a follow up to Rick S.’s comment, Trump’s in hot water not because he accidentally took *some” classified documents – he’s in big trouble since he took hundreds of docs – and, most importantly, he refused to turn them over when notified of his mistake. Denied having them, erroneously said he was entitled to keep them, hid/moved them when he knew they were coming to seize them. None of the others you mention did ANY of that. So… you’re only half right – that *Biden* should not have been charged.
Small biased minds sure breed small biased thinking!
Cannon apparently doesn’t know (or doesn’t care) that Cabinet secretaries appoint many people to major senior positions without the requirement of a Senate confirmation.