Cannon Fire: Trump Motion to Dismiss Denied
Judge Aileen Cannon Denied One of Two Pending Motions To Dismiss from Trump's Team in the Florida Documents Case
In the “documents case” in the Southern District of Florida, United States District Judge Aileen M. Cannon ruled against former President Donald Trump's motion to dismiss counts 1-321. The motion argued that the statutes underpinning the charges were unconstitutionally vague.
Specifically, the defense focused on 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), asserting that phrases like "unauthorized possession" and "relating to the national defense" failed to provide clear standards, thus violating the due process and the rule of lenity principles2.
The motion to dismiss, filed on February 22, 2024, contended that applying the statute to Trump, given his unique position as a former President with original classification authority, led to unsolvable ambiguities. The defense also highlighted past instances where similar circumstances did not lead to prosecution, suggesting arbitrary enforcement of the law.
Judge Cannon's decision to deny the motion without prejudice allows these issues to be revisited, potentially during jury instruction briefing or through other motions as the case proceeds. The court noted the need to resolve still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms and some disputed factual issues. This decision suggests a nuanced approach to the application of § 793(e), considering the former President's role and authority.
As the case continues, the unresolved issues will likely fuel further discussion on the reach of espionage statutes, the demarcation between personal and presidential records, and the fair notice requirement central to the due process clause.
Two other motions to dismiss were filed alongside these motions are yet to receive hearings; the Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (ECF No. 326) and the Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based On Presidential Immunity (ECF No. 324).
A separate motion to dismiss regarding the Presidential Records Act, which Trump's lawyers argued gives him the authority to label certain documents as personal, received a hearing, and has not yet been ruled on by Judge Cannon.
Counts 1-32 encompass allegations against Donald J. Trump under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), which criminalizes the unauthorized retention of information pertaining to national defense that could potentially harm the United States or benefit a foreign nation. These counts specifically assert that Mr. Trump retained such classified documents unlawfully.
The rule of lenity is a principle of statutory interpretation in which courts resolve ambiguity in criminal statutes in favor of the defendant. It mandates that when a criminal statute is ambiguous, its language should be interpreted in the light most favorable to the accused. This principle is grounded in the tenet that individuals should have clear notice of the behavior that could result in criminal sanctions and that legislatures, not courts, define criminal liability.