In an unexpected move, a federal judge last week dismissed charges against former President Donald Trump in his classified documents case.
Judge Aileen Cannon's ruling referencing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent concurrence in a critical case has ignited controversy and is likely to face appeals, as USA Today reports.
On Monday, Cannon threw out the charges in Trump's ongoing classified documents case, and her decision drew heavily upon legal interpretations from Thomas regarding presidential immunity.
Thomas, known for his expansive view on presidential powers, suggested on July 1 that the special counsel appointment of Jack Smith could well be unconstitutional. Trump had raised similar arguments earlier, questioning the legality of Smith's position.
Cannon cited Thomas's argument four times in her ruling on July 15. Relying on those points, she concluded that Smith's position within the Justice Department was not constitutionally founded.
Jonathan Adler, a noted law professor, opined, "This is an aggressive ruling," indicating broad implications for Justice Department appointments. Adler expressed skepticism over the ruling's merits, raising concerns about its validity. Other legal scholars also questioned the decision. Melissa Murray commented, "Thomas laid the table and Judge Cannon took a seat," emphasizing that Cannon's ruling aligned closely with Thomas's views on the matter.
Thomas' written opinions, especially on non-pertinent issues, have a history of stirring legal debates. His assertion that the special counsel position was not "established by Law" remains heavily disputed among legal scholars.
While Thomas' argument found traction with Judge Cannon, some suggest that it deviates from historical precedents. Previous cases, notably during Watergate and Robert Mueller's investigation in 2019, established the constitutionality of special counsels.
Judge Cannon argued that the Supreme Court's decision in the Nixon case does not, however, establish a binding precedent. Her ruling hinges on Thomas’s interpretation of constitutional requirements for the establishment of special counsel offices.
Former President Trump celebrated the dismissal of the documents case, calling for other charges against him to be dismissed. This latest development comes in the wake of an assassination attempt, adding further complexity to his legal battles.
Still, Adler highlighted the lack of controlling authority on the legality of appointing a special counsel, noting that judges often rely on “persuasive authority.” Despite this, Adler remained skeptical about the ruling's durability.
Commentator Sam Erman pointed out that delays in the trial ensure the case won’t be tried until after the upcoming election. He questioned the motives behind Judge Cannon’s decisions but withheld specific insights into them.
This controversy underscores the ongoing tension between different interpretations of constitutional law concerning presidential immunity. The ultimate resolution of this case is likely to impact future proceedings involving special counsel appointments.
