Legal expert explains how special master ruling is reigniting fears that 'Trump judges' will cause more problems

10 September 2022

A legal expert recently weighed in with his take on the controversial court ruling handed down by Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In an op-ed published by Politico, Aziz Huq, a law professor at the University of Chicago, expressed concern about the ruling and what it might suggest about the conservative judges that former President Donald Trump strategically packed the court with.

According to Huq, if the Trump-aligned, conservative judges ultimately rule in his favor during critical moments like this, it could create legal problems regarding cases involving the former president.

Cannon's ruled in favor of Trump's legal team when he allowed for a special master to review the top-secret, classified documents recovered from his Mar-a-Lago estate by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The ruling has raised concerns about the court's level of integrity and independence.

Huq also claims that "Trump judges" will face criticism for any decision they make going forward.

He wrote, "...it’s also sparked a more fundamental — and worrisome — debate about judicial independence, one that seemed to have all but abated over the last two years: Is there really a difference between 'Obama judges' and 'Trump judges,' as the former president once insisted, and as he recently seemed to confirm by his litigation strategy? Or do we have an independent judiciary that rises above politics?"

The legal expert's claims were similar to remarks made by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts back in 2018. At the time, he claimed, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”

However, things are quite different now.

"It is in this context of pervasive skepticism about the quality of American courts that Cannon issued her order. In its details, it confirms and exacerbates skepticism about the idea of an apolitical bench. Even conservative commentators have flagged its sharp swerve from the normal treatment criminal suspects receive based on 'irrelevant' considerations about Trump’s “reputation.”

Huq added, "Concerns were stoked when Trump’s lawyers 'went shopping”'for a judge he’d appointed — rather than appear before the magistrate who’d issued the original warrant — and who’s received death threats for his pains from the former president’s supporters," he explained. "And they flared further when Cannon telegraphed her intention to rule for the president who appointed her even before the Justice Department had filed any papers."

The legal expert also explained why Cannon's special master ruling is concerning and should be considered a red flag.

"Whether one ultimately believes that the federal courts are increasingly partisan, or whether one is focused narrowly on public confidence in the courts as part of our democracy, the trend line is clear: It is sloping downward toward a real crisis of the federal judiciary, with decisions like Cannon’s nudging us along incrementally," he wrote.

Huq also warned: "It’s impossible to know what form that might take in the end. But the prospect that the Supreme Court intercedes in the 2022 or 2024 elections — and in so doing shreds what’s left of public confidence in the judiciary — can’t be ruled out."

From Your Site Articles