MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin raised questions on Tuesday about whether Judge Aileen Cannon has the authority to block the United States Department of Justice from releasing special counsel Jack Smith’s report on his criminal investigations into President-elect Donald Trump.
“It is not clear… whether she has jurisdiction because earlier this year, she threw out the Mar-a-Lago documents case explaining that, from her reasoning, Jack Smith did not have the constitutional authority to bring that prosecution under the appointments clause of the Constitution,” Rubin said to CNN.
Rubin further argued that the legal grounds for Cannon’s actions are tenuous. “There is no basis here to block the report in part because it is not clear there is a case or controversy in front of her,” she explained. “But if there were, the argument that Trump is making—that presidential immunity also precludes the release of the report—is a stretch of the Supreme Court’s ruling that a president cannot be prosecuted for acts having to do with his presidency while he is a sitting president.”
Adding to the debate, fellow legal analyst Barbara McQuade speculated that Cannon’s decision might be a strategic move to benefit Trump by delaying the process until his inauguration on January 20. “I don’t think she has any jurisdiction, but delay is the name of the game,” McQuade said. “If they can stop the clock until January 20th, then the Department of Justice will be a Trump appointee and they will kill the whole thing. That’s the goal here.”
Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge, has been at the center of scrutiny for her perceived favoritism toward the former president in handling cases related to him. Her dismissal of the Mar-a-Lago documents case earlier this year and her latest intervention have drawn criticism from legal experts, who argue that her decisions lack sound legal justification.
The special counsel’s report, which remains blocked for now, is expected to detail findings from Smith’s investigations into Trump’s handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and other alleged misconduct. The DOJ has not yet commented on Cannon’s move, but legal observers suggest it could prompt an appeal to higher courts.
As the clock ticks closer to Inauguration Day, the implications of the delay could have significant consequences for the Justice Department’s ability to pursue the case. Whether Cannon’s actions hold up under legal scrutiny remains to be seen, but experts widely agree that the stakes are high for both the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial process.