Federal Judge Resets Schedule for Trump Documents Case Again

Former President Donald Trump (L); U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. Joe Raedle/Getty Images; U.S. Southern District of Florida

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on June 5 shifted and scheduled in briefings on major issues in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case.

The new order puts special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment and actions under a microscope while pushing back a three-day hearing originally scheduled this month to hash out discovery issues that have dominated litigation since the indictment.

On June 21, the parties will argue on President Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on the unlawful appointment of the special counsel. As the judge previously indicated, amici including experts who advanced this legal theory would be allowed to participate in the hearing. On June 4, she issued an order allowing three attorneys—representing two groups supporting and one opposing the motion—to each make 30-minute arguments.

This is expected to take the whole day.

Among the amici are professors who argued that special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment was unlawful when Mr. Mueller was tasked to investigate President Trump on Russian collusion allegations. One defendant charged by Mr. Mueller had challenged his appointment, which was upheld by a District of Columbia court and again on appeal.

Whatever Judge Cannon’s ruling, it can be expected to be appealed to higher court. And while it is not guaranteed the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to review the issue, during an April hearing on President Trump’s presidential immunity defense in another case, Justice Clarence Thomas brought up that legal theory.

In anticipation of this hearing, the judge also recently requested the parties file supplemental briefings on President Trump’s argument that the funding for Mr. Smith’s office also violates the appropriations clause of the Constitution.

The U.S Supreme Court recently issued a decision in a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case that focuses on the appropriations clause, and the parties have a June 11 deadline to brief the court on how the new ruling impacts their positions in this case.

Judge Cannon scheduled a new hearing for June 24 for parties to argue the funding issue. Then, in the afternoon, the parties will argue on the special counsel’s request to modify the conditions of President Trump’s release, in effect a gag order. This makes for the fourth case to consider a gag order on President Trump.

On June 25, the judge scheduled a new hearing on President Trump’s motion for relief, arguing that his attorney-client privilege was breached in relation to the raid on Mar-a-Lago. This hearing will not be open to the public, as attorneys will refer to materials from a grand jury proceeding that is still sealed. This hearing will deal with, among other things, whether President Trump is entitled to a hearing on whether a law enforcement officer lied in order to obtain the search warrant of his residence.

Judge Cannon referenced the possibility of scheduling an additional, evidentiary hearing on this issue as well.

The judge will also push back the three-day hearing on defendants’ motions to obtain more evidence from prosecutors for a variety of reasons, including a recent admission from prosecutors which raised questions from the defense about chain of custody of the classified documents seized from Mar-a-Lago.

Speedy Trial Clock

President Trump was indicted alongside his valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira. His co-defendants had demanded a speedy trial, putting the court on the clock to try the case in the same term or resolve the case without a trial.

On May 7, less than two weeks before the original trial date for the case, Judge Cannon issued a new schedule, declining to set a new trial date until the several “substantive“ motions and discovery issues could be resolved.

She paused the clock, finding that “the ends of justice served by this continuance ... outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendants in a speedy trial.”

Prosecutors had demanded the court follow the strict Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) process in litigating issues related to classified information in the case, and while much of this litigation is sealed from public access, docket entries indicate this has been time consuming.

Judge Cannon wrote that to set a new trial date before resolving “myriad and interconnected pre-trial and CIPA issues” would not be fair or prudent, effectively putting the trial on hold indefinitely.