Federal judge denies Trump's request to dismiss classified documents case

FORT PIERCE — The federal judge overseeing the classified documents case against Donald Trump has denied his request to throw out the charges against him, rejecting his attorneys' argument that the law he's accused of breaking is "unconstitutionally vague."

U.S. Judge Aileen Cannon's decision followed lengthy debate in a Fort Pierce courtroom Thursday stemming from two of Trump's motions to dismiss. Cannon has yet to rule on the second motion, which contends that the former president was legally entitled to the records he took from the White House after his presidency ended.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors called both motions “frivolous” and “offered for one transparent purpose — to delay the trial.” Cannon, whom Trump appointed to the federal bench in 2020, called their motions “premature” and suggested that the issues would be better decided by a jury than a judge.

She dismissed the motion "without prejudice," which means his attorneys may revive their request at a later time.

Trump in court:Federal judge poised to delay start of classified documents trial again

Trump: Espionage Act at heart of classified documents case is too vague

Cannon's order, released shortly after 5 p.m. Thursday, maintained the sentiment she expressed throughout the hearing: that striking down the Espionage Act under which Trump is charged would be "quite an extraordinary step."

However, she appeared to take seriously Trump's concerns about selective prosecution, noting to prosecutors that no former president found to have retained classified documents has ever been criminally charged for doing so.

The judge questioned whether Trump should have known he was running afoul of the law when he retained boxes of classified documents after his presidency ended. Prosecutors rejected the comparison to other officials, calling Trump's case "starkly different."

Where things stand:The latest major developments in all Trump's cases

Prosecutor Jay Bratt acknowledged what he called "superficial similarities" between the Trump's case and one involving President Joe Biden, which drew scrutiny at a congressional hearing this week. Both involve classified materials stored in cardboard boxes in an unsecured location, posing "serious risks to national security.” Both also involve a recording capturing the discussion of classified information with a ghostwriter.

Unlike Biden, Bratt said Trump engaged in repeated efforts to obstruct justice and thwart the return of classified documents. The prosecutor argued that additional distinctions — relating to the volume, sensitivity and storage of the classified documents — support his position that the two cases are not “nearly identical” and there are “legitimate reasons for viewing them differently.”

Defense team: Documents recovered at Mar-a-Lago belonged to Trump

The final issue debated Thursday, and one Cannon has not yet ruled on, concerned the Presidential Records Act. Trump's team has argued since before he was indicted that the Presidential Records Act gave him the “unreviewable discretion” to “designate the records at issue as personal" at will, thereby authorizing his possession of them.

Under his interpretation of the law, the documents belonged to him.

Smith's team rebutted this analysis of the Presidential Records Act, which was enacted, in part, to prevent former President Richard Nixon from destroying records related to the Watergate investigation. Under the law, most presidential records are safeguarded and preserved by the federal government, not an individual president.

Prosecutor David Harbach called the documents "indisputably presidential, not personal." He added that even if Trump had unilaterally transformed them into personal ones by removing them from the White House, as his attorneys argue he did, only an executive order could have authorized him to retain them.

Where's Melania?Trump won big on 'Super Tuesday,' but former first lady did not accompany him at his speech

Harbach also said that if Trump believed he had a valid legal basis to challenge the government's investigation through the Presidential Records Act, nothing in the law gave him license to obstruct that investigation "through lies and concealment."

This statement refers to allegations that Trump enlisted his aide and codefendant Waltine Nauta to hide boxes of classified documents and instructed the IT manager at Mar-a-Lago to delete the security-camera footage that prosecutors say captured the scheme.

Trump, along with codefendants Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira, have pleaded not guilty to all charges against them.

Cannon adjourned the hearing with a promise to rule on the remaining motion "promptly." She has yet rule on the parties' request made earlier this month to delay the trial, which is scheduled to begin in May.

Hannah Phillips is a journalist covering public safety and criminal justice at The Palm Beach Post. You can reach her at hphillips@pbpost.com.