A U.S. judge in Florida on Monday dismissed the criminal case accusing Donald Trump of illegally retaining classified documents after leaving office. The judge, Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump, ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith, leading the prosecution, unlawfully took his role and lacked the authority to bring the case.
The Justice Department announced it would appeal the decision. Cannon found that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who appointed Smith in 2022 to oversee Trump-related investigations, did not possess the authority “to appoint a federal officer with the prosecutorial powers wielded by Special Counsel Smith.”
This ruling marked another significant legal victory for Trump. Earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled on July 1 that Trump enjoyed broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took as president, in a separate case pursued by Smith involving Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Cannon’s decision came just two days after an assassination attempt on Trump during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. Trump is expected to be formally nominated as the Republican presidential candidate in Milwaukee this week, challenging Democratic President Joe Biden in the November 5 U.S. election.
A spokesperson for Smith expressed disagreement with Cannon’s ruling, noting that all previous courts had uniformly concluded differently on the matter. Courts had consistently upheld the attorney general’s authority to appoint special counsels for specific investigations.
Trump, in a social media post, welcomed the ruling as “just the first step” and called for the dismissal of all four criminal cases against him. In May, Trump was convicted on New York state charges related to hush money paid to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal before the 2016 election. Trump pleaded not guilty in the documents case and in Smith’s other case, as well as to election-related charges in Georgia state court.
In the documents case, Trump faced charges of willfully retaining sensitive national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after leaving office in 2021 and obstructing efforts by the government to retrieve the material. Prosecutors alleged the documents pertained to U.S. military and intelligence matters, including details about the American nuclear program. Trump’s personal aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira were also charged with obstructing the investigation.
Prosecutors plan to appeal the case to the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Despite half of the judges on the 11th Circuit being appointed by Trump, the court has previously disagreed with Cannon’s opinions. In 2022, the court overturned Cannon’s decision to appoint an independent “special master” to review FBI-seized documents from Trump’s Florida estate, citing her lack of authority.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, criticized Cannon’s ruling, calling it “breathtakingly misguided” and insisting it be appealed immediately. Schumer argued that Cannon’s impartiality in handling the case was questionable and suggested reassigning her.
Cannon’s decision at least casts doubt on the future of the case. Trump’s lawyers did not challenge Smith’s appointment in his election-related case.
Trump’s lawyers contested Garland’s 2022 decision to appoint Smith, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution because Smith’s office wasn’t established by Congress and he wasn’t confirmed by the Senate. Smith’s office countered that using special counsels for politically sensitive investigations was a well-established practice.
Cannon’s ruling, favoring Trump and showing skepticism toward prosecutors’ conduct, is the most consequential in a series of decisions. She previously indefinitely postponed a trial while considering numerous legal challenges from Trump.
In an unusual move, she allowed three outside lawyers, including two who supported Trump, to argue during a court hearing focused on Trump’s challenge to Smith’s appointment. Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas supported Trump’s challenge to the special counsel in his opinion concurring with the court’s decision to grant Trump broad immunity. Thomas questioned the legality of Smith’s appointment, echoing arguments made by Trump’s lawyers. Garland had appointed Smith, a prosecutor specializing in public corruption and international war crimes, to provide independence for investigations into Trump under Biden’s administration.
