Donald Trump may evade the legal consequences of his four criminal prosecutions due to advantageous rulings by judges he appointed.
This includes notable decisions by his three Supreme Court picks and a charge dismissal in Florida by Judge Aileen Cannon that worked in his favor.
Politico reported that Trump’s legal situation has centered around three Supreme Court appointments he made during his presidency. These justices ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution for official conduct. This affects various jurisdictional charges stemming from the 2020 election and his New York conviction.
Judge Aileen Cannon played a significant role in Trump’s legal journey by dismissing charges against him for hoarding classified documents. Trump's acknowledgment of this ruling came during his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination on Thursday.
Trump made history as the first president since Ronald Reagan to appoint three Supreme Court justices. However, he is also uniquely noted for being the first president to face criminal charges reviewed by his own appointees.
Judge Cannon's key ruling declared that Attorney General Merrick Garland overstepped his authority by appointing a special counsel, which led to the invalidation of prosecution against Trump. Despite the ruling, experts believe this decision is likely to be reversed on appeal.
This is not the first time Cannon’s decisions have drawn attention. She had previously slowed an investigation by requiring an independent review of materials seized by the FBI, causing delays.
A conservative appeals court panel, comprising two judges appointed by Trump, eventually rebuked Cannon and allowed the case to proceed.
In contrast, President Biden’s approach to judicial appointments involved selecting judges with consistently liberal backgrounds. The increasing trend of appointing ideologically compatible judges is becoming more pronounced.
Experts attribute Trump’s legal successes to extraordinary luck, timing, and a conservative strategy focused on long-term judicial appointments. Gene Rossi described these favorable outcomes as “a perfect example of serendipity.”
Meanwhile, legal scholar Kenneth Manning emphasizes the role of "pure luck," alongside strategic judicial placements driving Trump's outcomes.
Tim Parlatore, a legal analyst, expressed concerns that this trend of judicial rulings based on political affiliations undermines public trust. "Sometimes judges do things that are political" reflects the growing skepticism about judicial impartiality.
Although important rulings have gone in Trump’s favor, not all his appointees have always sided with him. For instance, Judge Dabney Friedrich upheld the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, directly contrasting Cannon’s ruling on Garland’s authority.
Zaring's study also highlights that Trump’s judicial appointees were generally younger and deeply ingrained in the conservative legal sphere. This has contributed to the perceived lack of impartiality in Trump's cases.
Trump’s broader legal strategy aims to defer his criminal cases past the 2024 election. His defenders see these favorable rulings as legally sound, yet they remain contentious among the public and legal experts alike.
David Zaring remarks, “Today, given that politics are so important in securing a judicial appointment, I can see how that sort of concern can spread.” This sentiment speaks to the growing politicization in judicial appointments observed in recent administrations.
Nevertheless, the judicial landscape continues to evolve, with a trend toward appointing judges aligned with presidential ideologies becoming more apparent over the years.
In summary, Donald Trump’s legal journey underscores the intricate and often controversial interplay between judicial appointments and legal outcomes.
His Supreme Court picks and Judge Aileen Cannon’s rulings have significantly impacted his legal battles.
The evolving strategies of presidential judicial appointments, mirrored by both Trump and Biden, highlight a growing trend toward an ideologically aligned judiciary. While some decisions have favored Trump, others have not, painting a complex picture of legal proceedings heavily influenced by judicial appointments.
