A federal judge rebuffed former President Trump’s bid to dismiss his Mar-a-Lago documents case on Thursday, contending that the over 300 classified records retrieved from his estate might fall within the realm of personal records.
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision was issued following special counsel Jack Smith’s urging to swiftly reject Trump’s assertion that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) empowered him to designate the national security documents as his private possessions.
In a succinct three-page ruling, Cannon stated, “The Presidential Records Act does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss.”
While this ruling may appear favorable to Smith, Cannon left open the possibility for Trump to raise the issue during the trial. Additionally, she used a considerable portion of the brief ruling to critique the special counsel for urging expedited proceedings in an earlier filing.
The ruling arrives about six weeks after Trump’s initial attempt to have the case dismissed. Legal pundits had anticipated the swift dismissal of his PRA arguments by the court.
Smith had previously asserted in court filings that the notion of Trump considering such documents as his personal property rested on a “fundamentally flawed legal premise.”
“It would be pure fiction to suggest that highly classified documents created by members of the intelligence community and military and presented to the President of the United States during his term in office were ‘purely private,’” Smith’s team argued.
“Based on the current record, the PRA should not play any role at trial at all.”
Trump faces prosecution largely under the Espionage Act, which prohibits the deliberate retention of national defense information. He also faces charges of obstruction of justice for attempting to conceal the documents from authorities after they demanded their return. Prosecutors contended that the PRA did not affect Trump’s ability to retain the documents.
Nevertheless, Cannon appeared to entertain Trump’s assertions regarding the documents’ classification under the PRA, prompting both parties to consider differing jury instructions addressing the issue.
These instructions elicited a response from Smith on Tuesday, expressing prosecutors’ frustration with Cannon’s perceived sluggishness in addressing the matter. They stressed the “vital importance” of her promptly deciding on the issue.
In response, Cannon pushed back on Thursday, asserting that the PRA argument could still be presented to jurors.
“To the extent the Special Counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust,” Cannon wrote.
She clarified that her request for jury instructions should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of Trump’s position.
“Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury,” Cannon concluded.