Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump’s request to pause some pre-trial deadlines in Jack Smith’s classified documents case following the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.
On Friday, Trump’s attorneys asked Judge Cannon to pause the classified documents case and reconsider two motions to dismiss in light of the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.
Veteran reporter Julie Kelly reported that Trump’s legal team filed the motion on Friday, seeking a pause in proceedings to assess the impact of the immunity decision. The motion stated, “President Donald J. Trump respectfully submits this motion for (I) leave to file supplemental briefing regarding the implications of Trump v. United States for the pending Presidential-immunity motion, ECF No. 324; and (2) a partial stay of further proceedings-with the exception of the pending gag-order motion, ECF No. 592-until President Trump’s motions based on Presidential immunity and the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses are resolved.”
“A partial stay that pauses CIPA and other litigation is warranted based on the reasoning in Trump, and such a stay would be consistent with DOJ policies and practices that the Special Counsel’s Office claims to be bound by but is largely ignoring,” the motion continued. “Resolution of these threshold questions is necessary to minimize the adverse consequences to the institution of the Presidency arising from this unconstitutional investigation and prosecution. A partial stay is also appropriate to prevent further exploitation of judicial institutions and resources by Executive Branch personnel in connection with the shameful ongoing lawfare campaign.”
BREAKING: Judge Cannon just granted Trump's motion to pause some deadlines in FLA doc case to consider SCOTUS' immunity opinion and potential impact on the case. Trump's lawyers filed the motion yesterday pic.twitter.com/FbK6cdjw3Y
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) July 6, 2024
Trump’s legal team also cited Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion, which argued that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. Thomas wrote, “If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone solely authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”
Justice Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority, noting that he was a private citizen when appointed as special counsel, also noting that he is not Senate-confirmed.
Trump’s lawyers are presenting this argument to Judge Cannon as well.
“Regarding the Appointments Clause, including the principal-officer issue, Justice Thomas reasoned in his concurrence: If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in their motion.
Judge Cannon is also considering a separate motion to dismiss the case based on the unlawful appointment of the special counsel, which was debated at a hearing last month.
