Aileen Cannon just made “absolutely stunning” move—Legal analyst

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon just made an “absolutely stunning” move in former President Donald Trump‘s classified documents case, according to legal analyst Joyce Vance on Saturday.

Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has pleaded not guilty to Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith‘s 40 charges where it’s alleged that he retained classified materials after he left the White House in January 2021 and then obstructed the federal attempt to retrieve them from his Mar-a-Lago resort residence in Palm Beach, Florida. Trump has maintained his innocence in the case.

On Tuesday, Cannon, who is presiding over the case and was appointed to the bench by Trump in 2020, issued a paperless order allowing lawyers Josh Blackman, Gene Schaerr and Matthew Seligman to make oral arguments in a June 21 hearing to consider a motion to dismiss Trump’s 40 federal felony charges, which claims that Smith was appointed illegally.

All three lawyers are experts in constitutional law who filed amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs regarding the motion to dismiss. Schaerr and Blackman are representing groups that want the case against the former president to be dismissed, while Seligman is representing groups that say the case should continue.

In a Saturday interview with MSNBC‘s The Katie Phang Show, Vance, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama during the Obama administration, discussed the recent paperless order as she called the move “absolutely stunning” as amici briefs are usually not seen in district courts or in cases such as this.

“It is absolutely stunning, we see amici briefs used pretty heavily in front of the United States Supreme Court, even some in the Courts of Appeals, very rarely in the district courts. I think it’s essentially unprecedented to give them time to argue in the district court, even in the Supreme Court, that usually involves the government coming in a case between private parties where they have a stake,” she said.

Vance added: “This is sort of like Aileen Cannon, the judge in the case, going out on the streets and saying to just random people in the public, ‘Hey come on in and tell me what you think about this issue.’ These are non-parties, they do not have a stake in the outcome in this case, it is very unusual.”

Newsweek has reached out to the Southern District of Florida Court via email for comment.

This comes as Cannon has faced criticism, largely along partisan lines, for delaying the trial and not setting a start date.

Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg previously told Newsweek via social media direct message that Cannon’s decision was “highly unusual,” while adding that “most” judges would have already rejected the dismissal motion’s claim that the appointment of Smith was illegal.

“She’s allowing non-parties to participate in oral argument, which is highly unusual,” he wrote. “They are usually just allowed to submit briefs as amici curiae…Very unusual. Especially for the claim that the special counsel is unconstitutional. Most other judges would have dismissed these claims already.”

Newsweek has also reached out to Aronberg via email for comment.

Meanwhile on Thursday, two private citizens Jessica Nan Berk and Hilda Tobias Kennedy of Atlantic City, New Jersey, filed as amici in support of Trump’s motion to dismiss his indictment in the classified documents case, claiming it’s a “misuse of government funds” that does “not support the people’s interest of justice.”

The two wrote to Cannon to appear as “amici” for the former president, meaning they are not a party to the case, but believe they have relevant information. Berk and Kennedy self-identify as “disabled, pro se, indigent, private citizens, elderly” who “have knowledge and experience the Court may find helpful.”

The amici motion is mainly focused on the allocation of public funding, rather than the political backing of Trump, Berk and Kennedy urged Congress to “make some common sense legislation” to stop continued violation of removing sensitive documents.

They wrote: “Funding is greatly needed for crimes against seniors and the disabled, veterans, the elderly, abused children/adults, etc. and the Department of Justice is grossly failing to use the people’s money where it matters and should not be condoned for pursuing such a costly and dragged out litigation that could be quickly resolved cheaply.

“We would also like to urge Congress to make some common sense legislation to stop this continued violation of removing sensitive documents without some kind of order, putting us all at risk.”