Legal experts have debated the significance of the judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents trial describing two motions supporting the argument to dismiss the federal case as potentially being of "considerable" help.
On Thursday, Judge Aileen Cannon accepted two amicus briefs filed by the America First Legal Foundation group and former President Ronald Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese arguing that the case where Trump has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges over claims he illegally retained classified documents after he left office then obstructed the federal attempt to retrieve them be thrown out.
Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump and been criticized for multiple judgments that have favored the former president in the classified documents case, accepted the amicus briefs, which are submitted by people not directly involved in a case but want to give their view on the issues at stake, for consideration.
In court filings, Cannon wrote that the arguments "may be of considerable help" to her, prompting suggestions the judge may be learning towards throwing out the federal case against the former president.
Former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann was one of those who suggested that the language used by Cannon in the court filings was "worrisome."
However, other legal experts have downplayed the significance of Cannon accepting the briefs for consideration.
Eric Columbus, a lawyer who litigated during the House Select Comittee's investigation into the January 6 attack, said the language Cannon used is similar to that of Supreme Court rules to suggest the amicus briefs have information that neither the defense or prosecution had put forward.
"All Judge Cannon is saying is that these briefs may be filed. The 'may be of considerable help' language comes from the relevant Supreme Court rule regarding amicus briefs (there's no corresponding rule in district courts) and these are the only two amicus briefs filed so far," Columbus posted on X, formerly Twitter.
In reply, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance wrote: "This is the correct take. Stand down folks."
Another former federal prosecutor, Renato Mariotti, added: "Don't overreact to this. Amicus briefs are filed regularly and courts routinely consider them.
"Some of Judge Cannon's decisions have rightfully been questioned, but this is benign."
Elsewhere, Cannon is set to confirm when Trump can appear in front of a jury to face the classified documents charges. She is expected to push the trial back from its current May 20 start date.
Trump's legal team argued that the trial cannot take place until 2025 because of the presidential hopeful's schedule, while also suggesting a potential trial date of August. Special Counsel Jack Smith's team requested Cannon order the trial to begin in July.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
fairness meter
To Rate This Article
About the writer
Ewan Palmer is a Newsweek News Reporter based in London, U.K. His focus is reporting on US politics, domestic policy ... Read more
