11th Circuit ‘Will Reverse’ Judge Cannon’s Mar-A-Lago Dismissal: Attorney

Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the federal classified documents case against Donald Trump will be overturned in the courts, a legal expert has said.
David Lat, a former federal prosecutor and legal commentator, said in a blog post that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will back Special Counsel Jack Smith and “reverse” the decision from Cannon.
Cannon ruled in July that the 40 federal charges against Trump over his alleged mishandling of classified materials, and attempts to obstruct the government from retrieving them from his Mar-a-Lago resort, should be thrown out. Trump pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, backed the former president’s argument that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel in the case by Attorney General Merrick Garland because it was not first approved by the Senate.
Smith has appealed the decision to the 11th Circuit, accusing Cannon’s decision of being “at odds with widespread and longstanding appointment practices” at the Department of Justice.
In his Original Jurisdiction blog, Lat predicted the 11th Circuit would overturn Cannon’s decision, noting that attorney Ken White described Smith’s brief as “very strong” and “completely brutal.”
“Although, interestingly enough, it does not seek removal of Judge Aileen Cannon from the case,” Lat wrote.
“I adhere to my prior prediction that the Eleventh Circuit will reverse Judge Cannon,” he wrote.
‘”But I remain uncertain about how the Supreme Court would rule if they decide to hear the case, given the strong feelings that some conservative justices have about the separation of powers and executive authority—reflected in, of course, their ruling in Trump v. United States (aka the immunity case).”
In a historic July decision, the Supreme Court ruled Trump is permitted some presidential immunity against prosecution for official acts in office, which risks upending Smith’s federal 2020 election obstruction case against the former president.
The dispute over the classified documents case may also end up at the Supreme Court, with either side likely to appeal the 11th Circuit’s decision.
Greg Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University in New York, previously said that Cannon’s reasons for dismissing the classified documents case are “extremely weak,” but that the Supreme Court could side with her if the case goes to the nation’s highest court.
“There is no way to know for sure what the Supreme Court will say, but given the Supreme Court’s extremely broad view of separation of powers in the Trump immunity case, there is a good chance that the Court will agree with Judge Cannon that the broad unsupervised powers given to Jack Smith are unlawful and that the special counsel regulation is overbroad,” Germain told Newsweek.
The decision from Cannon follows multiple decisions she gave which appear to have benefited the former president in the classified documents case. This included slow-walking decisions that legal experts said should have been dismissed immediately, meaning the trial was almost certain not to take place before November’s election.
If Trump wins the 2024 election, he could order the Department of Justice to drop the federal investigations into him once he enters office in January 2025.
There were frequent calls for Cannon to be removed from the case over her past rulings, with Smith appearing reluctant to take the necessary steps to do so.
The Department of Justice has been contacted for comment via email.
In their brief to the 11th Circuit on August 26, Smith’s office said the Attorney General has the “necessary overarching authority” to direct the operations of the Justice Department, including appointing special counsels without approval.
“Precedent and history confirm those authorities, as do the long tradition of special-counsel appointments by Attorneys General and Congress’s endorsement of that practice through appropriations and other legislation,” it said.
“The district court’s contrary view conflicts with an otherwise unbroken course of decisions, including by the Supreme Court, that the Attorney General has such authority, and it is at odds with widespread and longstanding appointment practices in the Department of Justice and across the government.”