Editorial rips 'aggressive judicial activism' in Judge Cannon’s dismissal of Trump docs case
Former President Donald Trump enjoyed a major legal victory when, on Monday, July 15, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed special counsel Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago documents charges against him.
The Trump appointee made her decision on the first day of the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where Trump received his party's presidential nomination for the third time. Trump, who had survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Western Pennsylvania only days earlier, appeared on stage with a bandaged ear.
Cannon's ruling has drawn vehement condemnation from Trump's critics, who are arguing that she was oblivious to legal precedent when she agreed with Trump's legal team that Smith's appointment as special counsel was illegitimate. The former president's attorneys claimed that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland had no business appointing Smith without him being confirmed in a U.S. Senate vote.
READ MORE: Watergate lawyer: Nixon 'would have walked' under 'radical SCOTUS ruling'
In a scathing editorial published by Albany, New York's Times Union on July 17, the publication's editorial board argues that Cannon's ruling "had nothing to do with the merits of the case."
"It is an unusual legal argument, to be sure, and one that overturns several decades of precedent, including a unanimous 1974 Supreme Court decision holding that President Richard Nixon was required to respond to a subpoena from a special prosecutor," the Times Union board explains. "The use of such counsels has been common in the decades since. But in a 93-page order, Ms. Cannon argues that no specific federal statute authorizes the appointment of special counsels or gives them prosecutorial power."
The board continues, "She also contends that allowing special counsels to operate under the control of the attorney general is a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers."
The Times Union writers note, however, that the point of appointing a special counsel is avoiding conflicts of interest.
READ MORE: How Cannon ruling mirrors Nixon's 'Saturday Night Massacre': ex-federal prosecutor
"It is not the role of a district court judge — Ms. Cannon sits in Fort Pierce, Fla. — to overturn precedent set by higher courts, or to write laws," the Times Union board writes. "After all, if Congress disagreed with how special prosecutors are being used, it could respond with laws clarifying precisely when and how they should be deployed. That Congress has not done so over a period stretching back decades suggests it has no such objections."
The board adds, "Ms. Cannon, then, is engaging in an aggressive form of judicial activism and displaying the very overreach that conservatives have long decried, at least when they find the outcome displeasing. Her decision is likely to be overturned on appeal, but whether the case goes forward will almost certainly depend on the result of the November presidential election."
READ MORE: 'Assault on conservatism': How the Trumpifed GOP convention shows a total rejection of Reagan
The Times Union's full editorial is available at this link.
