Former President Donald Trump is now aiming to use the Supreme Court's recent immunity decision to justify tossing his classified documents case in the Southern District of Florida. But at least one legal expert isn't sure his gambit will succeed.
According to the 6-3 decision in Trump v. United States, a president is afforded absolute broad immunity from criminal prosecution, so long as any possible violation of laws is done as an "official act." Trump's attorneys may now attempt to have the Mar-a-Lago case thrown out by claiming that the former president's decision to store classified documents at his Florida home was done before he left his office as an official act. And given the fact that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon — who is presiding over the case — was appointed to the federal bench by Trump, some in the legal world told NBC News that she may side with him and grant the presumption of immunity.
"The outcome will depend on whether Judge Cannon characterizes Trump’s decision at the end of his Presidency to transport the documents to Mar-a-Lago as an official act of designating the documents as personal, and whether she views that act as an essential premise on which the criminal charges depend," Pepperdine University law professor Joel Johnson told NBC.
But one Florida-based prosecutor isn't so sure that Trump will be able to convince even his own appointed judge. Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg told the network that Cannon's colleagues in the federal judiciary likely won't see eye to eye with her interpretation and application of the immunity ruling should she take the former president's side.
"If Judge Cannon wishes to adopt his reasoning, I expect she will be reversed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals," he said.
Cannon has already been overruled by the 11th Circuit in past decisions pertaining to the Mar-a-Lago case. When she appointed a special master to review the FBI's seizure of documents following its 2022 raid on the former president's home, the 11th Circuit vacated that ruling, saying she "improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction."
"The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant," an 11th Circuit panel wrote at the time. "Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so."
Regardless of how Cannon applies the immunity ruling to the classified documents case, Loyola Marymount University law professor Justin Leavitt argued that the Supreme Court's recent decision will mean even more delays before the actual trial.
"I have no doubt that there will be another set of motions filed and that Judge Cannon will need ample time to work through those motions," Leavitt told NBC. "The primary impact of today’s decision on the classified documents cases is just to reconfirm that it’s extremely unlikely to be heard before November."
Click here to read NBC's report in full.
