(Gage Skidmore)
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to block the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on President-elect Donald Trump’s two criminal investigations has drawn sharp criticism. Slate legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern described the Tuesday ruling as “outrageous” and “startling,” calling it the most “perverse” of Cannon’s controversial legal findings.
“Her order is fundamentally lawless — not even in a debatable sense, but objectively just outside the law,” Stern wrote on Wednesday in a blistering critique. He labeled the Trump-appointed judge’s ruling as “wildly indefensible,” noting its lack of legal foundation or explanation.
According to Stern, Cannon has no authority to impose the injunction. “The startling breadth of her order is extremely dubious, but the legal flaw runs even deeper; she is purporting to exercise authority that she just does not have,” he said.
The crux of Stern’s argument lies in Cannon’s jurisdiction—or lack thereof. She previously handed over control of the case to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to grant relief on the issue of releasing Smith’s report. “She therefore lacks any power to interfere with the Justice Department’s release of Smith’s report,” Stern added.
Stern also highlighted additional jurisdictional problems, questioning how Cannon could legally restrict Attorney General Merrick Garland, a non-party to the case, from releasing the report. “Nor is it evident where Cannon would even derive the power to meddle with the Justice Department’s operations on such a granular level,” he wrote.
The implications of Cannon’s ruling are significant, particularly with Inauguration Day fast approaching. Stern suggested that her actions align more with political advocacy than judicial neutrality, writing, “Cannon has acted much more like an advocate for Trump than a neutral arbiter.”
He warned that Cannon’s tactics could delay the report’s release indefinitely, allowing Trump to bury it once in office. “A jurist as shameless as Cannon has plenty of tools left at her disposal to run out the clock, keeping the entire report on ice until Trump comes in and buries it for good,” Stern concluded.
As questions mount over Cannon’s controversial decision-making and potential political motivations, the public’s access to the Smith report remains in jeopardy, raising broader concerns about judicial impartiality and accountability.
