Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Classified Documents Case

Last updated on August 7th, 2024 at 04:27 pm

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed a federal indictment against former President Donald Trump, concluding prosecutor Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional.

Aileen, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, had presided over the case in which Trump was charged with mishandling classified documents.

The former president’s legal team has challenged Smith’s appointment as the special counsel bringing the charges. In a July 5 court filing, Trump’s team argued Smith cannot lead the case because his appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Appointments Clause, as described in Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, states the U.S. President shall have the power to make appointments, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

The Trump team argued that Smith should be viewed as a principal officer within the executive branch because he lacks a functional superior.

Cannon sided with the Trump team’s arguments in a 93-page order on Monday, July 15. She wrote:

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. 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. He can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed in the Appointments Clause, as Congress has directed for United States Attorneys throughout American history, see 28 U.S.C. § 541, or Congress can authorize his appointment through enactment of positive statutory law consistent with the Appointments Clause.

The classified documents case stemmed from the discovery of dozens of pages of materials from Trump’s presidency during an August 2022 law enforcement search at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

Smith had charged Trump with 32 counts of willful retention of national defense information from his time as president. Smith also charged Trump with another eight counts for allegedly making false statements and conspiring to conceal the documents and obstruct investigators.

Smith’s office had also charged two of Trump’s staffers, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira with engaging in the alleged conspiracy to hide classified documents. Cannon’s decision clears the charges against all three defendants.

The judge’s decision to dismiss the case leaves unanswered whether Trump’s handling of documents after his presidency was unlawful.

Smith is pursuing a separate federal case against Trump in Washington D.C., charging the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights stemming from his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results and the breach at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump insisted Smith’s case attempted to criminalize lawful actions within the scope of the president’s office.

It remains to be seen if the Trump legal team will challenge the Washington D.C. indictment on similar grounds as the ones that succeeded before Judge Cannon.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on July 1 that Trump still enjoys broad immunity and the presumption of immunity for “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” during his time as president. The Supreme Court’s ruling put into question whether the D.C. case could proceed, as it covered alleged actions during Trump’s time in office. Ultimately, the high court ordered the lower courts to reconsider whether Trump’s actions, as described in the D.C., were within his presidential authority.