Trump Classified Documents Case Dismissed By Judge Cannon

Topline

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon formally dismissed the federal charges against former President Donald Trump for allegedly withholding White House documents on Monday, ruling Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed—the latest in a series of blows to criminal cases against the former president.

Former President Donald Trump holds up a fist as he arrives back at Trump Tower after being … [+] convicted in his criminal trial in New York City, on May 30.

AFP via Getty Images

Key Facts

Cannon sided with Trump’s request to dismiss the charges against him under the Constitution’s Appointment Clause, as the ex-president claimed Smith’s appointment by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the law.

Trump was indicted on 40 federal felony charges for allegedly withholding national security information by bringing White House documents—including classified materials—back to Mar-a-Lago with him, and for allegedly obstructing the government’s investigation into retrieving the documents.

The judge—a Trump appointee—ruled someone with Smith’s level of power should only have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

She also ruled Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, because Congress had not appropriated funds to Smith’s investigations as required under federal law.

Cannon ordered the case to be closed, but noted in her order that the ruling does not affect any other legal proceedings—meaning it will not end the separate federal case against Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election.

The Justice Department said in a statement that it had authorized the Special Counsel’s Office to appeal the order, while Trump said on Truth Social on Monday the dismissal was a “first step,” calling for all the cases against him to be dismissed and “to END all Weaponization of our Justice System.”

Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We’re launching text message alerts so you’ll always know the biggest stories shaping the day’s headlines. Text “Alerts” to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here.

Chief Critic

Cannon’s “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,” DOJ spokesperson Peter Carr said in a statement Monday.

What To Watch For

The DOJ is expected to still appeal Cannon’s dismissal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals—and to the Supreme Court after that, if necessary. Legal experts noted Monday the ruling could present an opportunity for prosecutors to request a new judge in the case if the appeals court allows it to move forward. Critics have long protested Cannon’s handling of the case, as the judge has pushed back deadlines and issued rulings favorable to Trump. Law professor Anthony Michael Kreis also raised the possibility that the DOJ could get the U.S. Attorney in Florida to take over the case and reindict Trump—rather than Smith—which wouldn’t present the same issues about the special counsel’s appointment. The case will inevitably be significantly delayed even if it does move forward on appeal, however—which means that if Trump wins the election, he could appoint DOJ officials who will drop the charges against him, dismissing the case even if the 11th Circuit overturned Cannon’s ruling.

Surprising Fact

Cannon’s ruling came after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made the same argument in his concurrence to the court’s ruling granting Trump some immunity from criminal prosecution in his federal election case. Thomas used his concurrence to challenge Smith’s appointment, writing, “If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution.” The justice claimed that the questions about Smith’s appointment “must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”

What We Don’t Know

How this will affect Trump’s federal election case. That case is expected to resume on Friday after the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity, which found that Trump can’t be charged with anything that’s based on his official acts as president, but said it’s up to the lower court to determine which actions count as “official acts” and which are “unofficial acts” that can still be prosecuted. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who’s overseeing that case, has been much less deferential toward Trump in the past than Cannon, suggesting she would be less willing to throw out the charges. That being said, it remains to be seen how Cannon’s ruling could affect the case regardless, such as if Trump appeals any ruling by Chutkan upholding Smith’s appointment to the Supreme Court.

Tangent

Cannon’s ruling is one of multiple recent setbacks in the four criminal cases against Trump. In addition to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling throwing the federal election case into doubt, the high court’s decision could also affect Trump’s conviction in New York for falsifying business records. His sentencing in the case was delayed until September after Trump asked for the verdict to be thrown out because of the immunity ruling, arguing evidence was used in the trial that should have been barred. Trump’s criminal case in Georgia for trying to overturn the 2020 election has also been delayed as an appeals court considers whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified over a workplace relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade. The appeals court won’t hold a hearing over the dispute until October.

Key Background

Trump was indicted in the documents case in June 2023 after federal investigators searched Mar-a-Lago and recovered more than 11,000 White House documents, including more than 300 classified ones. Prosecutors alleged Trump knowingly concealed documents from the government, including moving documents so they wouldn’t be found by his own attorney after prosecutors subpoeaned him to turn over all remaining classified documents. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Cannon’s handling of the case raised scrutiny even before Trump was formally indicted, as she sided with the ex-president on a request to appoint a third-party special master to review the documents the government had seized from Mar-a-Lago—a ruling that was widely criticized by legal experts and was ultimately overturned. The judge had come under a new wave of scrutiny in recent months, as she indefinitely delayed the trial in the case—originally scheduled for May—after pushing back a series of deadlines, and took steps that legal experts questioned, such as allowing attorneys to craft proposed jury instructions based on an interpretation of federal law that legal experts have broadly said is incorrect.