Aileen Cannon, a judge appointed by former President Donald Trump, made a decision in his classified documents case that legal analyst Katie Phang believes was influenced by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The ruling dismissed Trump’s case, citing the unconstitutionality of DOJ special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment, a move supported by Thomas’ recent opinion on presidential immunity.
The case involved Trump facing 40 federal charges related to mishandling sensitive materials seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate post-presidency. Allegations included obstructing federal authorities in retrieving these materials, to which Trump pleaded not guilty.
During a recent episode of MSNBC’s The Katie Phang Show, Phang noted how Cannon’s ruling mirrored Thomas’ arguments in Trump’s case, pointing out that the judge referenced Thomas’ concurrence multiple times in her dismissal order.
Thomas expressed concerns in his opinion about the appointment of a private citizen as a special counsel to prosecute a former president, questioning if the Constitution mandates such a position. Smith, in response to Cannon’s ruling, promptly filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Phang highlighted the potential repercussions of Cannon’s decision, suggesting it could trigger a cascade effect within the legal system. The appeal submitted by Smith signifies a possible escalation in this legal saga.
This isn’t the first time experts have linked Thomas’ arguments to Cannon’s decisions. Legal analyst Glenn Kirschner, speaking on his YouTube channel, interpreted Thomas’ concurrence as a message meant for Judge Cannon, urging her to scrutinize the appointment of special counsel closely.
The situation underscores the intricate interplay between legal interpretations and judicial actions, demonstrating how intricate legal debates can impact high-profile cases like the one involving former President Trump.