Two federal judges in South Florida encouraged Judge Aileen M. Cannon to recuse herself from the high-profile case involving former President Donald J. Trump's classified documents, yet she chose to retain it, drawing criticism for her perceived partiality and handling of the matter.
The New York Times reported that Cannon's decision has since been a focal point of controversy, raising questions about her courtroom management and potential bias toward Trump, which is ironic considering the very real bias against Trump among many judges.
In June 2023, Judge Aileen M. Cannon was assigned the case centered around former President Donald J. Trump's classified documents.
Two experienced judges, including Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the Southern District of Florida, privately recommended that Judge Cannon decline the case. Despite their advice, Judge Cannon opted to keep the case.
Judge Cannon, with limited trial experience, had previously drawn scrutiny for intervening in Mr. Trump's criminal investigation, leading to his indictment. The intervention was reversed by a conservative appeals court panel.
Critics argue that her handling of the case deviated from the district's typical practices, such as referring pretrial motions to a magistrate, like Judge Bruce E. Reinhart.
Really these attacks come from leftists who want a less friendly judge to oversee the classified documents case. They know the case against Trump is weak and they want a leftist judge like the ones Trump is dealing with in New York.
Judge Reinhart had approved the FBI warrant search at Mar-a-Lago in 2022, which found thousands of government files, including over 100 classified ones. Following the search, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit for the return of his materials.
This lawsuit was overseen by Judge Cannon instead of the customary magistrate. However, her decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
In their critique, the appeals court panel stated, "It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president — but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation." Eventually, the Supreme Court declined Mr. Trump’s appeal, and by December 2022, Judge Cannon dismissed his lawsuit.
Critics also note that Judge Cannon has been slow in handling pretrial motions and has indefinitely postponed the trial even though both prosecution and defense were prepared. Mr. Trump’s legal team requested to delay the trial until after the election, and Judge Cannon's management appears to support this request.
There is concern that if Mr. Trump regains the presidency, he could instruct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to drop the case. Skeptics of Judge Cannon's actions suggest she might be overwhelmed or possibly biased in favor of Mr. Trump.
Routine advice from experienced judges to novice judges is common, but it is notable that Judge Cannon, being Senate-confirmed and presidentially appointed, holds life tenure and independent authority.
Clerk Angela E. Noble commented on the matter, saying, “Our judges do not comment on pending cases.”
Two anonymous sources revealed that efforts to persuade Judge Cannon to step aside were conducted by telephone. Among the reasons cited was the Miami courthouse, which was closer to the grand jury and had a secure room for handling classified information—a facility that Fort Pierce lacked until taxpayers funded a new Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (S.C.I.F).
Chief Judge Altonaga's argument against Judge Cannon taking the case emphasized the negative optics due to her previous involvement in Mr. Trump's criminal investigation. The appeals court panel underscored the importance of impartiality, stating, “To create a special exception here would defy our nation’s foundational principle that our law applies ‘to all, without regard to numbers, wealth or rank.’”
In June 2023, a grand jury in Miami indicted Trump for improper storage of sensitive documents and efforts to obstruct their recovery. The case was randomly assigned, as per standard district practice, and ultimately assigned to Judge Cannon.
Throughout these events, both Judge Cannon and Judge Altonaga refrained from commenting on the situation, maintaining judicial discretion. Judge Cannon’s approach has raised substantive concerns regarding her adherence to the practices and expectations of the Southern District of Florida.
Critics continue to express doubts over her courtroom management and her potential favor toward Mr. Trump, posing questions about the implications of her decisions in this high-stakes case.
