Judge Cannon sets off firestorm after tossing Trump docs case

The Florida judge accepted a long-shot legal argument, embraced by conservatives, that special counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed.

The federal judge overseeing the classified documents charges against former president Donald Trump has dismissed the indictment on the grounds that special counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed, according to a court filing Monday.

U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s ruling is a remarkable win for Trump, whose lawyers have attempted long-shot argument after long-shot argument to dismiss the case. Other courts have rejected arguments similar to the one that he made in Florida about the legality of Smith’s appointment.

The Justice Department is highly likely to appeal the decision, a legal fight that could end up at the Supreme Court.

Even if Cannon’s ruling is eventually overruled, the decision to dismiss Trump’s indictment adds to a string of legal victories for him in recent weeks, including a sweeping Supreme Court ruling July 1 that gives former presidents broad immunity for their official acts while in office.

Trump’s legal team has long considered the classified documents case to be the strongest of the four criminal cases against him — in part because the acts in question mostly occurred after he left the White House — and was the one they were most worried about.

The former president was charged with 40 counts of illegally retaining classified defense information and obstructing government efforts to retrieve the material. Some of the documents found in an FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home and private club, contained information about top-secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are kept in the dark about them, The Washington Post reported last year.

Cannon’s decision comes as Trump is preparing to be formally nominated as the Republican presidential nominee in this year’s election, with the Republican National Convention beginning in Milwaukee on Monday.

He was convicted in May of falsifying records to conceal a hush money payment to an adult-film actress ahead of the 2016 election, but is now challenging that verdict and the indictment itself based on the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Two other cases — his federal election-interference case in D.C. and a similar state trial in Georgia — have been stalled by legal challenges and will also be impacted by the immunity decision.

A spokesman for Smith did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Cannon’s decision to dismiss the Florida charges. In a 93-page ruling, the judge wrote that the issue of a special counsel was a novel one that had to be decided before the prosecution could proceed any further.

“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 concluded in her 93-page order.

The legal theory that Smith was illegally appointed and funded has generally been considered far-fetched. Trump’s legal team didn’t adopt the argument in court until conservative legal groups pushed it.

The former president’s lawyers did not make a similar request to dismiss Trump’s federal election interference case in D.C. — even though Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith to oversee that case in the same way as the Florida case.

But the legal argument gained more steam this month after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the presidential immunity case that the special counsel’s office needs to be established by Congress and that Smith needed to be confirmed by the Senate.

Thomas urged lower courts to explore this issue. The justice wrote that he tacked on his concurring opinion to the immunity ruling to “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure.”

Cannon held two hearings on the appointment of the special counsel last month, a few weeks before Thomas issued his opinion. During the hearing, it was not clear how she would rule, but she acknowledged that precedent seemed to support Garland’s appointment of Smith and that there would be a high legal bar for overturning it.

The crux of Trump’s argument is that because Garland has repeatedly said Smith is acting independently in overseeing the investigation, the special counsel should be considered a “principal officer” — a top government official who has no immediate supervisor and whose appointment requires Senate approval.

The special counsel team countered that Smith, like other special counsels before him, is not a principal officer. The team said that while federal regulations say Garland does not provide day-to-day supervision of special counsels, the attorney general ensures that they adhere to Justice Department protocols and can review major investigatory steps.

In an unusual move, Cannon invited outside groups to participate in the hearings and offer their arguments for and against the appointment of Smith.

“What do you make of this potentially tolerated practice,” Cannon asked outside attorney Gene Schaerr, noting that previous attorneys general have made appointments similar to Garland’s naming of Smith.

According to Politico's Kyle Cheney, "Judge Cannon has dismissed the Trump documents case, citing violation of appointments clause," later adding, "Cannon says Jack Smith's appointment usurps legislative power.."

Reaction to the 93-page ruling, which goes against case law, was swift and furious, on X, formerly known as Twitter with one commenter noting, "This just before the Republican Convention? What a weird coincidence!"

"I’m no lawyer but this seems nuts to me. Our country is in a very bad place if we can’t no longer hold people accountable. She’s rolling the dice that he wins and she gets put on the Supreme Court," Rico wrote.

Pointing to her sketchy legal reasoning, Jacob wrote, "HOW? How does it do this? The DOJ can investigate violations of the law, how does it matter how it decides who the prosecutor is internally? How is that an 'appointment'?"

Stelenj observed, "So she's saying every single special prosecutor ever appointed was unconstitutional? Good to know right Hunter? I guess Weiss would be unconstitutional as well."

"This is insane. And literally all of this could have been avoided if another judge was assigned to this case. Hopefully this will get appealed," Austin Art suggested.

Alan Krauss, wrote, "Another sad day for America."

Tiffany noted, "For anyone who missed it, Clarance Thomas gave her the needed ammunition to do this with his concurrence in the immunity case."

"She needs to be impeached and removed from the bench for blatant bias and a staggering level of incompetence. This matter has been ruled on already," Dom suggested.