Judge dismisses classified documents lawsuit against Donald Trump; Special Counsel’s Office to appeal

CNN
—

A federal judge on Monday dismissed a classified documents lawsuit against Donald Trump, a shocking decision that resolves one of the major legal challenges facing the former president.

In a 93-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Eileen Cannon said the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the Constitution, but she did not rule on whether Trump’s mishandling of classified documents was appropriate.

“After all, the administration’s increasing familiarity with appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in recent years appears to have followed a haphazard pattern with little judicial scrutiny,” Cannon wrote.

The ruling by Judge Cannon, who was appointed by President Trump in 2020, came on the first day of the Republican National Convention and as the nation was reeling from the weekend assassination attempt on President Trump. While a trial was considered highly unlikely before the presidential election, many legal experts viewed the classified documents lawsuit as the most likely of the four pending lawsuits against the former president.

Trump told Truth Social that the dismissal of the lawsuit was “just a first step,” calling the charges a “political attack” and calling for other lawsuits he faces to be dismissed as well.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, said in a statement Monday night that the Justice Department had approved the appeals plan.

“The dismissal of this case departs from the uniform conclusion of every court to date that has considered the issue of whether the Attorney General has the legal authority to appoint a special counsel,” Carr said. “The Department of Justice has granted the special counsel leave to appeal the court’s order.”

The White House referred a request for comment to the Department of Justice.

Smith accused Trump last year of removing classified documents from the White House and resisting government efforts to retrieve them. He has pleaded not guilty.

In Special Counsel Smith’s separate criminal case against Trump in Washington, D.C., the special counsel was pursuing federal charges against Trump for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Trump also faces state-level election interference charges in Georgia and was convicted earlier this year in New York of state violations for his role in a hush money scheme prior to the 2016 election.

Trump’s attempt to dismiss the case under the Appointments Clause was seen as unlikely, given that several special counsels under his own presidential administration had operated in a similar manner.

But the heretical argument gained momentum when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas endorsed the theory, writing in a footnote to the court’s presidential immunity decision that “serious questions remain as to whether the Attorney General violated that structure by creating an Office of Special Counsel where no statute provides for it. These questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”

Still, Judge Cannon held a hearing on the issue a few weeks ago, pressing the lawyers to explain specifically how Smith’s investigation into Trump was being funded. The judge’s questions were so pointed that special counsel lawyer James Pierce argued that even if Cannon dismissed the case on Appointments Clause grounds, the Justice Department was “prepared” to fund Smith’s case through court if necessary.

Cannon wrote in his order that the special counsel position “effectively usurps” Congress’ “significant legislative power” by giving the head of a department, in this case the Department of Justice, the authority to appoint such an official.

“If the political branch wants to empower the Attorney General to appoint Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this conduct with the full authority of a United States Attorney, there is an effective means to do so,” she wrote.

Cannon wrote in his ruling Monday that the Justice Department “may reallocate funds to the continued operations of Special Counsel Smith’s office,” but noted that it’s not yet clear whether the newly filed lawsuits will be admissible.

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution have been heavily funded by the Treasury Department without statutory authorization, making it nearly impossible to rewrite history at this point,” Cannon wrote. “The Court is at a loss as to how to resolve this serious separation of powers violation with a remedy other than removal, but the answer is not entirely obvious and precedent is not well developed.”

She noted in her ruling that Smith’s team “indicated” during court hearings on the matter that the office’s funding could be restructured to meet her concerns.

This story has been updated with additional developments.