Judge dismisses Trump classified documents case

Our live coverage of the classified documents case has concluded for today. Please scroll through the posts below for details on what unfolded on Monday.

A federal judge’s decision to dismiss Donald Trump’s classified documents case?on Monday was a surprising end to what was once seen as one of the strongest criminal cases brought against the former president last year.

See some key takeaways from Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision:

Read more about these takeaways here.

Most Americans viewed the classified document case against Trump as serious and potentially casting doubts on his fitness for office, polling earlier this year shows, although fewer saw them as disqualifying.

In?an April CNN poll, 38% of US adults said that the charges related to classified documents found at Trump’s home, should disqualify him from the presidency, with 25% saying that they cast doubts on his fitness for the job, but weren’t disqualifying, and 37% that they were not relevant to his fitness for the presidency.

The share who saw the charges in the documents case as disqualifying if true was higher than the 28% who said the same of the hush money charges for which he was later convicted, but lower than the share who saw charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election (43%) or his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol (47%) as disqualifying if true.

Among GOP-aligned adults, 7% called the charges disqualifying if true, 25% said they cast doubts, and 67% viewed them as irrelevant.

In?an April Reuters/Ipsos survey, 70% of US adults said that the charges that Trump illegally removed classified documents from the White House and kept the documents at a private home after leaving office were at least somewhat serious, with about half, 49%, calling them very serious.?

Speaker Mike Johnson arrives for the House Republican Conference caucus meeting at the Capitol on July 9.

In a statement Monday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said that Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling in the Trump classified documents case “is good news for America and for the rule of law.”

He said that House Republicans “repeatedly argued that Special Counsel Jack Smith abused his office’s authority in pursuit of President Trump.”

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a staunch Trump ally, said today “marks a historic victory for our Constitution and the rule of law. This dismissal is not just a win for President Trump but a triumph for the principles our nation was founded upon. Our country must come together and unite to end the weaponization of our justice system and restore equal justice under the law.”

Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision Monday to invalidate special counsel Jack Smith’s authority is the latest, most severe blow from the judge after tensions have grown between her and the prosecutors.?

In a series of recent in-person hearings, both the prosecutors arguing to Cannon from Smith’s office and Cannon herself have been frustrated with the way the Trump case has progressed.

Prosecutor David Harbach had told Cannon that Trump was hijacking the proceedings against him with politics, while Cannon has admonished the prosecutor for interrupting her.

The judge picked up on the threads of tension in her order Monday dismissing the case against Trump.

In a lengthy footnote, Cannon pointed out that the special counsel never gave her enough legal arguments in writing to give her options on what could happen next if she invalidated their office’s authority.

“The parties require no prompting before objecting, opposing, and otherwise engaging in ‘spirited’ exchanges,” Cannon wrote.

“With respect to the instant Motion itself, both the Special Counsel and Defendant Trump submitted briefing; amicus briefs were received; and a lengthy hearing occurred. Yet startlingly, the Special Counsel submitted nothing on the topic of the proper remedy for the Appointments Clause issue, despite challenging dismissal as a remedy in the Appropriations Clause context.”

The footnote also could serve as an attempt by Cannon to protect herself on how she’s handled the Trump case – which has come under widespread criticism for her slow approach and unwillingness to decide issues –if and when her dismissal is appealed.

Following Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, some Democrats seized on the opportunity to call for Supreme Court reform.

In her ruling, Cannon referenced a footnote from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in the Trump immunity that supported this novel legal theory. Some Democrats have pounced on it.

Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson – a veteran Democrat in Congress – said that Thomas “used his concurring opinion [in the Trump immunity case] to publicly provide a roadmap for that issue to return to him and his soulmates.”

In response to Cannon’s ruling, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse – a Democrat on the frontlines of Supreme Court reform – said “from the creepy billionaires to Clarence Thomas, from Thomas to Cannon, the message and desired result is delivered. Foul winds are blowing.”

Democrats’ efforts to pass Supreme Court reform have intensified in recent months as the conservative-majority Court rules in ways they disagree with and new allegations of misconduct arise. Whitehouse, among others, have called for an enforceable code of ethics for the justices. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced articles of impeachment against Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. Whitehouse and Sen. Ron Wyden called for Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate these two justices.

Following Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling in Trump’s classified documents case, some Democrats publicly denounced the decision.

Here are some of the reactions so far:

Former President Donald Trump is seen in Detroit on June 15.

Former President Donald Trump on Monday said the dismissal of his classified documents case “should be just the first step,” and called for his other cases to also be dismissed.??

“As me move forward in Uniting our Nation after the horrific events on Saturday, this dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida should be just the first step, followed quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts — The January 6th Hoax in Washington, D.C., the Manhattan D.A.’s Zombie Case, the New York A.G. Scam, Fake Claims about a woman I never met (a decades old photo in a line with her then husband does not count), and the Georgia “Perfect” Phone Call charges,” Trump posted on Truth Social.?

Trump again claimed without evidence all the charges against him were “Political Attacks.” He referenced his New York civil fraud suit in which a judge found he fraudulently inflated the values of his properties,?his New York criminal hush money trial in which he was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business counts, the cases brought by E. Jean Carroll in which a jury found Trump sexually abused Carroll and a judge fined him for defamation,?and the federal case related to his efforts to overturn the election.??

“The Democrat Justice Department coordinated ALL of these Political Attacks, which are an Election Interference conspiracy against Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME. Let us come together to END all Weaponization of our Justice System, and Make America Great Again!” Trump posted.?

Fox News anchor Bret Baier talked with Trump on the phone, who said he was “thrilled” about the judge’s decision, according to Baier.

“We just got off the phone with the former president and he said this: ‘I am thrilled that a judge had the courage and wisdom to do this. This has big, big implications not just for this case but for other cases. The special counsel worked with everyone to try to take me down. This is a big, big deal. It only makes this convention more positive. This will be an amazing week,’” Baier said.

Judge Aileen Cannon had been on the federal bench for little more than a year when a senior judge offered to preside over one of her first criminal trials in her isolated south Florida courthouse.

“It’s very lonely,” Senior Judge Paul C. Huck told CNN of Fort Pierce, a small fishing and citrus community on the edge of the Southern District of Florida where Cannon is the only federal judge. “It’s a pretty sleepy town with a pretty sleepy courtroom.”

Two years later, Cannon presided over one of the most consequential and complex cases in America: the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump over his handling of the nation’s secrets. She’s attracted nationwide scrutiny for how she’s approached the case.

Since Trump was first indicted a year ago, Cannon has?dragged out the proceedings?in ways that have flummoxed legal scholars and put a trial initially scheduled to begin last month?on hold indefinitely.

Several attorneys who have practiced in front of Cannon pointed to her isolation as one explanation for her conduct. Cannon’s solitary post in the Fort Pierce courthouse, one that rarely sees high-profile action, deprives her of the informal, day-to-day interactions with more seasoned judges who sit at the other courthouses and could offer her advice, the lawyers told CNN.

They also said Cannon’s lack of trial experience, both as a lawyer and a judge, is apparent. In her seven years as a Justice Department attorney, Cannon participated on the trial teams of just four criminal cases. And on the bench, she’s only presided over a handful of criminal trials — and Huck took over one of them.

For this account of Cannon’s judicial demeanor, CNN spoke to 10 attorneys who have had cases — both criminal and civil — before her. The lawyers spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity because of the professional and ethical risks of speaking to press about a sitting federal judge in front of whom they practice.

To corroborate their characterizations of Cannon’s approach, CNN reviewed the public dockets of scores of cases that have traveled through her courtroom.

Read more about Cannon.

Judge Aileen Cannon justified her decision Monday on technical constitutional grounds regarding special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment and the funding of his office.

Her rationale was not based on specifics of this case or the strength or weakness of the charges.?

The 93-page ruling from Cannon includes a dense legal discussion about the structure of the?special counsel’s office, and why she thinks it doesn’t pass legal muster.????????????

She only mentioned the allegations against Trump in the most cursory fashion, in a single paragraph, where she mentioned the specific crimes the former president was charged with.

The judge added she is not weighing in on other tests Trump and his codefendants brought in this case, and the work done in court to protect classified documents and other evidence in this case remains.

“This Order shall not affect or weaken any of the protections for classified information imposed in this case or any protective orders pertaining to classified information,” Cannon wrote.

Secret Service and Palm Beach police are seen in front of the home of former President Donald Trump at Mar-A-Lago on August 8, 2022.

The FBI executed a search warrant in August 2022 at?Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, as part of an investigation into the handling of presidential documents, including classified documents, that may have been brought there.

This was an extraordinary and historic move to search the home of a former president.?

Before the initial charges against Trump were brought in June 2023, officials had tried —and failed — throughout 2021 and 2022 to get back the documents in Trump’s possession.

The National Archives, which is charged with collecting and sorting presidential material, said in early 2022 that at least 15 boxes of White House records were recovered from the estate, including some that were classified.

The government’s efforts culminated in the FBI’s execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago in August 2022, in which federal agents?seized thousands of documents, about 100 of which were?marked as classified.

Jack Smith was made special counsel?to oversee the Justice Department’s investigation into both the documents matter and Trump’s efforts to undermine the results of the 2020 election.

The indictment?unveiled in June?claims Trump retained documents related to national defense that were classified at the highest levels, and some were so sensitive, they required special handling.

The Department of Justice had singled out 31 documents — one for each of the 31 willful retention counts that Trump faced. Several of the records concern the military capabilities of various countries, prosecutors said.

Congressional Republicans are reacting to the decision by Judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss the classified documents case against Trump in Florida, with many of Trump’s allies celebrating the decision.

Here are some of the reactions so far:

Some Republican members on the House Judiciary Committee also weighed in on the case:

Judge Aileen Cannon said in her order that the special counsel’s position “effectively usurps” Congress’ “important legislative authority” by giving the executive branch, specifically the Justice Department, the power to appoint an official like Jack Smith.

She concluded that, “Adopting the position of the Special Counsel allows any Attorney General, without Congressional input, to circumvent this statutory scheme and appoint one-off special counsels to wield the immense power of a United States Attorney.”

“He can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed in the Appointments Clause, as Congress has directed for United States Attorneys throughout American history, or Congress can authorize his appointment through enactment of positive statutory law consistent with the Appointments Clause,” the judge said in her order.

The White House is not weighing in right now on Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of the classified documents case involving former President Donald Trump. Instead, a White House official is referring reporters to the Justice Department.

President Joe Biden last referenced Trump’s classified case while campaigning in Detroit, Michigan on Friday.

“He’s still facing charges for mishandling classified information, which is a criminal offense,” Biden said as he painted Trump as unfit to serve in the presidency.?

Dald Trump’s efforts to dismiss the case under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause were seen as a long shot.?

Over the past few years, several special counsels – even during the Trump presidential administration – were structured the same way as Smith’s investigation and were allowed to proceed.?

Federal judges in other cases reached the opposite conclusion as Cannon, upholding the legality of the special counsel’s office. Special counsel David Weiss, who is prosecuting Hunter Biden, and special counsel Robert Mueller, who led the Trump-Russia probe, survived repeated legal challenges on these same grounds.?

Still, Cannon held a hearing on the issue several weeks ago, pushing attorneys to explain exactly how Smith’s investigation into Trump was being funded. The judge’s questions were so pointed that special counsel attorney James Pearce argued that even if Cannon were to throw out the case due to an appointments clause issue that the Justice Department was “prepared” to fund Smith’s cases through trial if necessary.?

And the fringe argument gained steam earlier this month, when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas threw his support behind the theory. He wrote in a footnote in the high court’s presidential immunity decision that there are “serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”

CNN’s Marshall Cohen contributed?to this report.

Judge Aileen Cannon said in her ruling on Monday that the Justice Department “could reallocate funds to finance the continued operation of special counsel Jack Smith’s office,” but said it’s not yet clear whether a newly-brought case would pass legal muster.?

She noted in her ruling that Smith’s team “suggested” at a court hearing on the matter that they could restructure the office’s funding to satisfy her concerns.

Donald Trump was indicted in June 2023 by a federal grand jury in Miami, accused of taking classified national defense documents from the White House after he left office and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve the materials.

Both Trump?and his aide Walt?Nauta pleaded not guilty.

On July 27, 2023, the special counsel?Jack Smith charged Trump with three new counts, including one additional count of willful retention of national defense information. Nauta was also charged on two new counts. A third defendant, Carlos de Oliveira, was added to the case and charged with four counts, including being added to the obstruction conspiracy charged in the original indictment.

The key evidence in the case included:

You can read the full annotated indictment of the classified documents case here.

Judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case saying that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment is unconstitutional.

Read Judge Cannon’s ruling below:

This image, contained in the indictment against former President Donald Trump, shows boxes of records stored in a bathroom and shower in the Lake Room at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.

Judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed the classified documents case against Donald Trump.

In a ruling Monday, Cannon said the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the Constitution.

Cannon also wrote, “In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny.”?

CNN has reached out to special counsel Smith’s team for reaction.