Judge Cannon Dismisses Jack Smith's Classified Documents Case

The Dismissal

On July 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal indictment charging Donald Trump with illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them. Judge Cannon ruled that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, finding that his office had not been properly authorized or funded by Congress. The ruling came just two days after the assassination attempt against Trump in Pennsylvania.

The Case Against Trump

The classified documents case had been widely considered the strongest of the four criminal cases against Trump. Federal prosecutors alleged that Trump took highly sensitive national defense documents when he left the White House in January 2021, stored them haphazardly at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, showed them to visitors, and then conspired to obstruct the government’s repeated attempts to recover them. The indictment included charges under the Espionage Act and detailed allegations that Trump directed an employee to move boxes of documents to hide them from investigators.

Legal Controversy

Judge Cannon’s ruling drew sharp criticism from legal scholars across the ideological spectrum. Many constitutional law experts said her interpretation of the Appointments Clause was at odds with decades of precedent allowing the appointment of special counsels. Attorney General Merrick Garland called the decision “contrary to the longstanding practice” of the Department of Justice. Jack Smith’s team appealed the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Broader Implications

The dismissal eliminated one of the most serious legal threats facing Trump’s presidential campaign. Critics pointed out that Judge Cannon, who had been appointed by Trump in 2020, had made a series of rulings favorable to the former president throughout the case, including delays that many observers said made a pre-election trial impossible. The decision added to a broader debate about whether the legal system could hold a former president accountable while he was simultaneously running for office.