In a bombshell decision, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon dismissed all charges in the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump on Monday, ruling that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutional. Smith\u2019s appointment, according to Judge Cannon \u2014 who was appointed to the bench by Trump and is commonly viewed as a fervent supporter of his policies \u2014 violated the Constitution\u2019s appointments clause because neither the president nor the Senate nominated or confirmed him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Several legal experts and news reports immediately noted that Judge Cannon\u2019s ruling defies decades of legal precedent, including decisions dating back to the Watergate era, that have upheld the legality of appointing independent prosecutors. The timing of the decision is particularly notable, coming on the first day of the Republican National Convention, where Trump is expected to be officially nominated as the party\u2019s presidential candidate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Smith\u2019s team filed federal charges against Trump and two other defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in the Southern District of Florida. The former president is a convicted felon, having been convicted in New York on 34 felony counts that are unrelated to these charges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trump was charged with unlawfully retaining national defense information, including improper storage of highly classified materials, after leaving office. He was also charged with obstruction based upon his actions following repeated attempts by the government to retrieve the files.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result of the dismissal, an appeal from Smith\u2019s team is almost inevitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Judge Cannon\u2019s dismissal was based on her finding that Attorney General Merrick Garland did not have the authority to appoint Smith, who isn\u2019t a U.S. Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney. However, the appointment of special counsels is a process that has been in place for nearly 30 years. Cannon cited defense arguments that allowing special counsels to operate under the attorney general\u2019s authority violates the Constitution\u2019s separation of powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ruling follows closely on the heels of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas\u2019 separate opinion in the recent landmark decision granting Trump and future presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution. Justice Thomas, himself an ardent Trump supporter, raised questions about the constitutionality of Smith\u2019s appointment, even though this issue was not germane to the case being decided and had never been otherwise previously addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Judge Cannon\u2019s decision removes a significant legal obstacle for Trump as he campaigns for a return to the White House despite being found responsible for sexually assaulting a woman, committing massive business fraud in New York, and, by the U.S. Congress, for inciting the deadly January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.<\/p>\n\n\n\n