Mia Boykin
A Florida federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump has dismissed the classified documents case against him, ruling that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith and the funding for his investigation were unlawful. US District Judge Aileen Cannon stated in her 93-page decision that Smith’s appointment was “unlawful” and unconditional, and ordered the case to be closed.
The case against Trump began in November 2022 when Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel to oversee investigations into Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving office and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The indictment accused Trump of scheming to mislead federal investigators to retain sensitive materials that he knew were still classified after leaving the White House.
Trump praised the ruling in a statement, calling for the dismissal of all criminal cases against him. Smith’s team indicated they would appeal the decision, stating that “the dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel.”
Cannon’s decision dismissing the case came two weeks to the day after the Supreme Court issued a decision largely in Trump’s favor in the federal election interference case. The ruling held that he had immunity for some of his conduct as president and that Judge Tanya Chutkan would have to decide which of his actions were official presidential acts before the case proceeded.
In an opinion concurring with the 6-3 conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested Smith’s appointment as special counsel raised a potential violation of the Constitution’s provisions on appointment power.
“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 his opinion, which Cannon cited three times in her ruling.
Christopher Kise, an attorney for Trump, praised Cannon’s ruling, stating that “Judge Cannon today restored the rule of law and made the right call for America.” President Joe Biden criticized the decision as “specious” and disagreed with its basis.
Cannon’s ruling contrasts with previous court decisions that have affirmed the Attorney General’s authority to appoint special counsels. The ruling is likely to have an impact on other cases involving Trump, including the federal election interference case and the state election interference case in Georgia. Smith will be able to appeal the dismissal to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Cannon’s involvement in the case preceded Trump’s being charged. In 2022, she temporarily halted the FBI’s review of the documents that had been recovered at Mar-a-Lago and granted Trump’s request for a special master to review the evidence. A panel of appeals court judges overturned that ruling, suggesting Cannon had tried to “carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents.”
The criminal case was randomly assigned to Cannon after Trump was indicted, and she has repeatedly come under criticism from legal experts for her meandering approach to the case. It had at one point been scheduled to go to trial earlier this year, but Cannon postponed the trial date indefinitely, citing a “myriad” pending motions in the case.
The immunity ruling from the Supreme Court is also likely to impact Trump’s state election interference case in Georgia, which has been stayed until at least October while an appeals court hears arguments on whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified from the case.
The ruling has already impacted Trump’s case in New York after he was convicted in March of 34 counts of falsifying business records. He was originally scheduled to be sentenced last week, but it was postponed until at least September after Trump’s attorneys argued the convictions should be tossed because of the immunity ruling. They argue that some evidence used against Trump at trial involved official acts in the White House is now null after the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Manhattan district attorney’s office is arguing against reversal or a new trial.
The Washington case, which at one point had been scheduled to go to trial in March, had been stalled while the high court grappled with the immunity issue, and Chutkan will need to decide on the “official acts” questions before the case goes to trial, making it impossible for it to begin before the election. Trump’s attorneys had not challenged Smith’s appointment in that case but are likely to do so now given Cannon’s ruling.
