🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
A new Supreme Court decision could have a major effect on Donald Trump's classified documents case in Florida.
The case, decided on May 16, may be crucial in deciding whether the government can legally fund the office of special prosecutor, Jack Smith.
Trump's lawyers have long contended that Congress had no right to set aside millions of dollars for a prosecutor who is solely focused on prosecuting Donald Trump, both in the classified documents case in Florida and Trump's election interference case in Washington, D.C.
Cannon is overseeing the case, in which Smith accuses Trump of illegally retaining classified documents, hoarding them at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and obstructing attempts by federal officials to retrieve them.
Trump, the presumptive Republican candidate in the 2024 presidential election, has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. He has denied any wrongdoing in the case and has said the documents he retained were personal.
In a separate case in Washington, D.C, Smith accuses Trump of allegedly working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the January 6, 2021 riot in the U.S. Capitol. Trump has also pleaded not guilty to those charges and has said that they form part of a political witch hunt.
The Washington, D.C. case has been frozen while the Supreme Court considers Trump's claim that he has presidential immunity from prosecution.
In legal briefs to Cannon, Trump's lawyers have claimed that Smith's special prosecutor position is a violation of the U.S constitution's appropriations clause, which mandates how Congress should spend taxpayers' money.
Judge Aileen Cannon announced on Wednesday that she wants briefs from Trump's lawyers and from prosecutors on the May 16, 2024, decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd.
In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the appropriations clause of the U.S. constitution allows Congress to mandate that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can be financed by the earnings of the Federal Reserve.
In a writing direction, Cannon, a Trump appointee, stated that she wants the briefs "in anticipation of the June 21, 2024, hearing on Defendant Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment based on the unlawful appointment and funding of special counsel Jack Smith."
She wrote that both sides must file briefs by June 11 on what effect the Supreme Court decision will have on "Defendant Trump's appropriations clause challenge."
The maximum length of each brief is 15 pages, she wrote.
Cannon has long been accused by legal analysts of delaying the Trump trial as much as possible.
Cannon indefinitely postponed the trial on May 7, citing legal disputes around classified evidence. Cannon said there were eight outstanding substantive pending motions for her to rule on and predicted this will take until at least late July.
One of those motions is Trump's appropriations clause objections to the funding of Jack Smith's office.
It is unknown whether the classified documents trial will begin before the November 2024 presidential election.
If elected, Trump has a number of options to kill the trial, including pardoning himself or appointing a favorable attorney general to drop the charges.
Newsweek sought email comment from Trump's attorney and Cannon's office on Thursday.
Attorney Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, told Newsweek on May 8 that he was not surprised by Cannon's decision to delay the Trump trial.
"I'm not surprised, but I am disgusted. Whether she's doing it out of partiality for the former president or is just a lousy jurist, this latest blunder by Judge Cannon takes the cake," he said.
fairness meter
About the writer
Sean O'Driscoll is a Newsweek Senior Crime and Courts Reporter based in Ireland. His focus is reporting on U.S. law. ... Read more