Judge Aileen Cannon took a "cue" from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas amid the recent dismissal of former President Donald Trump's classified documents case, according to legal analyst Katie Phang on Saturday.
Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump in 2020, dismissed the former president's classified documents case arguing that Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional and that her decision was supported by Justice Thomas' opinion on July 1,in the highest court's presidential immunity case.
Trump was facing 40 federal charges over his alleged handling of sensitive materials seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, after he left the White House in January 2021. He was also accused of obstructing efforts by federal authorities to retrieve them. He pleaded not guilty.
During Saturday's MSNBC's The Katie Phang Show, Phang, a former prosecutor, spoke about Cannon's ruling as she noted that the judge didn't miss the "cue" from Thomas as she pointed towards Cannon citing arguments Thomas previously laid out earlier this month in Trump's presidential immunity case.
"Thomas' out there concurrence was a thinly veiled invitation to Cannon to dismiss Trump's case. And trust me Cannon didn't miss the cue, she cited Thomas' concurrence three different times in her dismissal order," Phang said.
Thomas wrote in a solo concurring opinion: "The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel's appointment before proceeding. If this unprecedented prosecution [of Trump] is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people."
In his opinion, which was not joined by any of the Court's other justices, Thomas said he chose to write separately "to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure.
"In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been 'established by law,' as the Constitution requires," Thomas argued.
Newsweek has reached out to the Southern District of Florida Court via email and the Supreme Court via online form for comment.
However, Smith filed a notice of appeal of Cannon's ruling last week and wrote, "The United States of America hereby gives notice that it appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order of the District Court entered on July 15, 2024, Docket Entry 672."
On Saturday, Phang mentioned Smith's appeal and how Cannon's decision could see a "domino effect."
"Anticipating this kind of adverse ruling from Cannon, Jack Smith was standing at the ready despite having 30 days from the date of Cannon's order to do so, just two days later he filed his notice of appeal," Phang said. "To be clear, Cannon's ruling doesn't call into question just special counsel, but a huge range of DOJ appointments. Her decision will have a profound domino effect. Will the 11th Circuit send yet another scathing rebuke to Cannon for her outrageous judicial activism?"
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sharply criticized Cannon in December 2022 while overturning one of her early decisions.
After Cannon decided to appoint a special master to oversee the classified documents discovered at Mar-a-Lago, which would have greatly slowed down Smith's case, the 11th Circuit quickly agreed to hear his appeal.
The 11th Circuit unanimously ruled that Cannon "improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction" in hearing the special master motion.
The court said: "The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so."
This is not the first time legal analysts have pointed towards Thomas' arguments having a significant hand in Cannon's ruling.
Speaking on his YouTube channel on Friday, Glenn Kirschner, a former assistant U.S. attorney and frequent Trump critic, referred to Thomas' separate concurrence as a note that was "obviously intended" for Cannon.
"Clarence Thomas wrote a little note that he obviously intended for Judge Cannon saying, 'Hey judge Cannon, you might want to look into the appointment of special counsel thing. I think maybe there's an issue there that could help Donald Trump.' In substance that's what Clarence Thomas communicated to judge Cannon," he said.
fairness meter
About the writer
Natalie Venegas is a Weekend Reporter at Newsweek based in New York. Her focus is reporting on education, social justice ... Read more
