An Astonishing Ruling in Trump’s Classified-Documents Case

Aileen Cannon, a federal judge in Florida, has dismissed the case against former President Donald Trump involving hoarding sensitive documents taken from the White House. In an order issued this morning, Cannon found that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith violates the Constitution.

The ruling is an astonishing—though probably not final—turn in the case, which was already among the most unusual in American history. The decision contradicts many previous rulings and is certain to be appealed, but even so, it is a significant, unexpected legal victory for Trump—one of many, recently—and another success for his attempt to push his legal troubles past the November election.

The facts of this case appeared to be simpler than those in any of the others against him. Upon leaving the White House, Trump took with him boxes full of documents, including what prosecutors say are highly classified ones relating to national security. He stashed the documents on a ballroom stage and in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago, his estate in Florida. When the federal government repeatedly asked for them back, Trump refused. When he was subpoenaed, he allegedly sought to hide them. Notes from his lawyer, obtained by prosecutors, showed him scheming to conceal papers. In August 2022, after the Justice Department concluded that Trump was not complying, the FBI conducted an unannounced search at Mar-a-Lago and seized boxes.

[David A. Graham: Judge Aileen Cannon is who critics feared she was]

Trump’s defenses up to this point were gossamer-thin: He claimed that he had declassified all of the documents before leaving the White House, despite offering no evidence; and he claimed that they were all personal records.

But in November 2022, after Trump announced he would run for president again in 2024, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel, a move intended to guard against the appearance of political interference. In an ironic twist, it seems to have had an opposite effect—allowing Trump to get a judge he appointed to dismiss the case.

Trump got lucky when the case was assigned to Cannon, a young lawyer appointed to the bench late in his term. Before prosecutors charged Trump, Cannon had overseen some procedural matters related to the search and made rulings perplexingly favorable to Trump about evidence handling. Those decisions were reversed by an appeals court, which said Cannon’s approach “would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.” Last month, The New York Times reported that two fellow judges also in Florida’s Southern District had unsuccessfully urged her to pass the case to another judge.

[Read: The cases against Trump—a guide]

Cannon declined, and since the charges were brought, she has continued to make ruling after ruling that favors Trump. She has bogged the case down in lengthy hearings on matters that are usually trivial. Cannon has also clashed with and scolded prosecutors repeatedly. When she agreed to hold hearings in June on whether Smith’s appointment was legal, outside observers were surprised to hear her entertaining an argument that other courts have repeatedly rejected.

After today’s ruling was made public, legal experts immediately predicted that the Justice Department would appeal Cannon’s ruling. The government would seem to have a good case there, though it was expected to prevail at the trial court, too. Smith might also request that the case be reassigned to a different judge. Treating Cannon as an impartial jurist in this case has become practically impossible.

[Adam Serwer: The Supreme Court puts Trump above the law]

Even so, the dismissal is another blow to Garland’s Justice Department, which has bobbled the task of handling a lawless ex-president. Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election and then attempted to steal documents that didn’t belong to him and whose handling imperiled national security. Yet the Justice Department took until summer 2023 to file charges against him in either case. The documents case is now dead, though it could be revived. The election-subversion case is on life support, after a Supreme Court majority, including three of his appointees, ruled that some of Trump’s actions alleged in the case were “official acts” for which he has criminal immunity. A trial judge must now sort through the allegations and decide what is official and what is not.

This is a case where justice delayed may actually be justice denied: If Trump wins the presidency again in November, he is expected to quash the federal cases against him. After a miserable legal stretch, including huge financial penalties in two New York state civil cases and a felony conviction in New York, Trump has scored major wins in the two federal cases against him. These wins suggest a disheartening possibility: It doesn’t matter what the law is as long as you appointed the judges.