A coalition of legal experts and advocacy groups, led by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), has formally requested the reassignment of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in the ongoing federal classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.
The request was filed today through an amicus brief by prominent legal authorities, including former U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, New York University Law School Professor Emeritus Stephen Gillers, and Hofstra University Law School Professor James Sample. The brief, filed by the law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, argues that Judge Cannon’s conduct throughout the case raises serious concerns about impartiality and judicial propriety, necessitating her removal from the case if the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns her recent ruling.
Judge Cannon’s Controversial Conduct in Trump Case
Judge Cannon, who was randomly assigned to preside over the felony classified documents case involving Trump, has made several controversial decisions over the past year. Most notably, she dismissed the indictment against Trump, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional—a decision that legal experts widely regard as unorthodox and unsupported by existing legal precedent.
Prior to this dismissal, Judge Cannon repeatedly demonstrated behavior that suggested a bias in favor of Trump. For instance, she proposed that certain White House files could be permanently withheld from criminal investigators under executive privilege, despite legal precedent indicating otherwise. Furthermore, she issued preliminary jury instructions that were unusually favorable to Trump early in the proceedings, even as other critical legal matters remained unresolved.
The amicus brief emphasizes that these actions, combined with Judge Cannon’s apparent reluctance to advance the case, have severely undermined the fairness and efficiency of the legal process. The brief also notes that Judge Cannon has yet to set a new trial date, despite both parties having previously agreed that the trial could begin in the summer of 2023. The Court’s failure to hold Trump accountable in a timely manner, the brief argues, risks eroding public trust in the judicial system.
See also: Special Counsel Seeks Revival Of Trump Documents Case
Legal Experts: “Judge Cannon’s Conduct Warrants Reassignment”
The amicus brief highlights the unprecedented nature of Judge Cannon’s rulings and her failure to adhere to established legal standards. “At every possible opportunity, Judge Cannon has demonstrated her apparent bias in favor of Donald Trump,” said CREW President Noah Bookbinder. “She has at every stage made this case more difficult than the law mandated, and she then dismissed it on largely unprecedented grounds, delivering a significant win to Trump. Should the Court reverse her decision, it must also ensure that the case is reassigned to allow it to proceed fairly and expeditiously and to help restore the credibility of the federal court system.”
Bookbinder’s statement reflects a broader concern among legal professionals that Judge Cannon’s continued involvement in the case could compromise the integrity of the legal process. The brief argues that, given her demonstrated bias and the high stakes of the case, the 11th Circuit Court should reassign the matter to a different judge to ensure a fair and impartial trial.
Implications for the Justice System
The amicus brief also underscores the broader implications of Judge Cannon’s conduct for the U.S. justice system. The case against Trump is unprecedented in its significance, with far-reaching consequences for the rule of law and the accountability of public officials. By failing to adhere to established legal standards and by appearing to favor Trump, Judge Cannon has, according to the brief, jeopardized the public’s trust in the judicial process.
“Judge Cannon was presented with a historic case that will shape how, and if, the most powerful figures in government can be held accountable by the law,” Bookbinder continued. “She has repeatedly failed to rise to the occasion. Given her apparent lack of impartiality, the case should not return to her.”
The brief concludes by urging the 11th Circuit Court to take swift action to reassign the case should it reverse Judge Cannon’s decision. Doing so, the brief argues, is essential not only for the fair resolution of the case at hand but also for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the federal judiciary.
As the legal community awaits the 11th Circuit Court’s decision, the call for Judge Cannon’s reassignment has gained significant traction. The outcome of this case will not only determine the legal fate of a former president but will also set a critical precedent for the future of judicial impartiality and the rule of law in the United States.