The BDN Editorial Board operates independently from the newsroom, and does not set policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has previously rebuked Judge Aileen Cannon in the case involving Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. We expect that overruling to continue, should the appeals court have time before the elections to weigh in on Cannon’s flawed decision to dismiss the case against Trump.
The questionable dismissal was not an exoneration of Trump, but rather a tortured and unconvincing refutation of the longstanding Department of Justice process for appointing special and independent counsels. Despite decades of practice and court rulings supporting this type of investigator on politically sensitive matters investigating Republicans and Democrats alike, Cannon has ruled the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel in the Trump documents investigation to be unconstitutional.
We agree with the many legal experts who expect this ruling to be overturned on appeal, as it should be.
“It’s just not consistent with Supreme Court precedent, historical practice, constitutional text or constitutional structure. It goes out of its way to kind of strike down the appointment,” University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt told the Hill this week. “But keep in mind, we’ve had this kind of mechanism for appointments for decades. … So there’s a lot of historical precedent that supports it, and none going the other way.”
The Department of Justice, rightly, is appealing this decision detached from precedent and practice. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who appointed Smith, has been strongly and uncharacteristically vocal in his criticism of Cannon’s ruling. We share his confidence that the law is on the department’s side.
Trump’s alleged retention of classified documents at his Florida home merits continued prosecution. Again, Cannon’s ruling was not an exoneration of his underlying behavior — even if the delay in itself is a win for the former president politically. While the looming election presents timing and logistical complications for the appeal and any subsequent resumption of the case, the procedural wrench that Cannon’s ruling presents should not derail an eventual adjudication of the 40 felony counts faced in this document’s case.
Cannon’s decision is rightly being criticized for the mistake that it is, but it remains critical how people disagree with that ruling and with Cannon’s trend of questionable actions. Trump, already a convicted felon, is quick to question the legitimacy of any court ruling against him. His opponents must not fall into the same cynical pattern. A flawed decision does not make it illegitimate, just as it does not make Cannon corrupt.
As Americans, we cannot only accept the rulings we agree with, and cast the others as bogus or illegitimate. We think Judge Cannon erred in her ruling, and the appeals court should overrule her. That is the process for addressing flawed rulings like this, and it should proceed without delay.
