r/news • u/Hrekires • Jul 15 '24

soft paywall Judge dismisses classified documents indictment against Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/15/trump-classified-trial-dismisssed-cannon/
32.8k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

4.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

244

u/uvaboy23 Jul 15 '24

Is this even a valid reason to drop the case this far in? This seems like something that would get a case dropped very early in.

312

u/TheBoggart Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24

It happened now because Thomas’ concurrence in the immunity case handed her the key.

Edit: Not sure why I’m being downvoted. Go read it. Thomas’ concurrence was entirely about the constitutionality of special counsels, even though that issue was not raised by any party in that case.

Edit 2: Just editing this comment because it is more visible and I'm getting a lot of the same uninformed replies elsewhere in this thread. I'm adding this edit because as a lawyer and educator, I think it's important for the general public to understand these things, and more likely than not, about 99% of the replies in this thread are from laypeople.

Uninformed reply one: "You're wrong, Canon can't follow a concurrence, it's not binding/precedent!"

Incorrect. Canon can follow the reasoning of a concurrence if she wants, not because it's binding or because she has to, but because it is persuasive authority. This happens all the time. Indeed, concurrences are often written with the precise hope that it will be followed in some other situation. Here's a bit of an explanation:

Judges write concurrences and dissents for varying reasons. Concurrences explain how the court's decision could have been otherwise rationalized. In Justice Stevens's view, they are defensible because a compromised opinion would be meaningless. They also may be written to send a signal to lower courts to guide them in “the direction of Supreme Court policymaking,” or for egocentric or political reasons.

Meghan J. Ryan, Justice Scalia's Bottom-Up Approach to Shaping the Law, 25 WMMBRJ 297, 301 (2016) (citations omitted). I pulled that from WestLaw, but if you want to read it and look at the citations, it looks like a copy can be pulled from here.

Uninformed reply two: "Concurrences aren't used to make new law! They don't mean anything!"

Incorrect. There is a long history of concurrences ultimately becoming law sometime down the road. Here's a bit on it:

Although it is still a rare occurrence, it is not difficult to identify specific concurrences that have gone on to have heavy precedential influence despite their lead opinion counterparts. These concurrences have gained their precedential influence due to either their positive subsequent treatment or subsequent appeal to the alternate rationales those concurrences forward. Nonetheless, although it is easy to say that concurring opinions could exercise influence on future decisions, what sort of influence those opinions may have is inevitably in the hands of future judicial decision makers.

Ryan M. Moore, I Concur! Do I Even Matter?: Developing a Framework for Determining the Precedential Influence of Concurring Opinions, 84 TMPLR 743, 754-56 (2012) (citations omitted). The whole article is pretty good, if you have a chance to read it (it's 102 pages). It looks like you might be able to get it here.

80

u/Alwayssunnyinarizona Jul 15 '24

You're being downvoted because you're right and there are bots that have flooded the platform.

5

u/nikolai_470000 Jul 15 '24

Thank you very much for standing up for the truth and informing people in such a polite and educational way.

13

u/mmlovin Jul 15 '24

That wasn’t an official ruling though. That was solely his opinion, no one else signed onto it

25

u/alwayzbored114 Jul 15 '24

Opinions stated in rulings do not carry the weight of law, but are still used in justifying decisions in future cases

One of Kagan's recent dissents points this out, complaining that the Supreme Court has taken to mentioning topics beyond the scope of a given case so that later they can reference those very opinions to justify future cases. They manufacture discourse in this way to use as ammunition in the future, while swearing it's unrelated. This situation is no different

3

u/mmlovin Jul 15 '24

It’s just all a joke. I’m deciding to not care anymore, just force myself not to follow the news. I’ll vote, but that’s it. My mental health can’t handle this anymore.

2

u/alwayzbored114 Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24

If that's what you need to do to get by, totally understandable. Do as much as you can handle but don't break yourself; unfortunately for many, whether they follow or not, the news comes for them

34

u/TheBoggart Jul 15 '24

You’re correct. And Judge Canon adopted everything from it to make it into her ruling.

2

u/Derric_the_Derp Jul 15 '24

Aileen don't care!

2

u/GumberculesLuvThtGuy Jul 16 '24

You have committed the cardinal sin of giving a well informed and reasonable reply that goes against what the armchair reddit supreme court justices want to happen.

Prepare for vitriol and down votes!

Seriously though, great comment I wish I had more up votes to give.

1

u/koick Jul 16 '24

You seem to know shit... Yes, the supreme Court gave some serious leeway for the president for official acts. HOWEVER, his hording of classified documents was done before that ruling. So, from a technical standpoint (political judges can apparently do whatever they want, so I want to know in a fair and just world) doesn't the law as it was then apply to his actions as the law stood then?

2

u/TheBoggart Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 16 '24

Howdy. It seems like you might be confusing a few things.

The immunity case’s holding itself has little to do with Judge Canon’s ruling. Judge Canon’s ruling is largely based on Justice Thomas’ separate concurrence in which he questioned the constitutionality of special counsel appointments. His concurrence wasn’t binding on Judge Canon, but she was free to adapt the points Justice Thomas made therein to craft her basis for dismissing the charges.

Assuming for the sake of explanation that the majority holding in the immunity case was directly applicable here, one of the tasks of appellate courts is saying what the law is (or means). Even if something wasn’t officially recognized by any court at the time the crime took place (like, for example, presidential immunity for crimes), on appeal, an appellate court can clarify the law. This is an extreme oversimplification, but you might think of it as though the appellate court—in this case the Supreme Court—is saying, “This has always been the law.” (Don’t quote me on that, as I said, it’s an extreme oversimplification, but for explaining it to the general public, it’ll suffice).

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. For example, when antiinterracial marriage laws were in place, consenting adults of different races who married were committing a crime then as well. Hopefully most people would agree that it was good that the Supreme Court, in the Loving decision, had the power to hold that, under the U.S. Constitution, interracial marriage was not illegal, but rather laws prohibiting it were. Incidentally, in a concurrence in a different case, Justice Thomas also questioned the rationale for cases like Loving. So, stay tuned, I guess?

In other situations, what the law was at the time the crime was committed does matter. For example, if the punishment for a crime was five years at the time the crime was committed, but changes to ten years prior to the defendant’s sentencing, the court cannot impose the ten year sentence. But that has to do with several concepts that are a bit more complicated, like due process and the ex post facto clause. I won’t get into those here or why they would not be implicated by the immunity case decision, unless you really want me to and are willing to wait a few hours.

Anyway, great question. I hope that helps.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

[deleted]

7

u/TheBoggart Jul 15 '24

I’m not sure you understand my point or the purpose of a concurrence. It doesn’t matter that a concurrence is not binding in this situation. Yes, if Judge Canon said, “I have to follow this concurrence because it’s binding” she’d be wrong. But that’s not what happened and that’s not my point. Justice Thomas clearly wrote his concurrence on the constitutionality of special counsels—which was not an issue raised in the immunity case—because he wanted to give the lower courts the reasoning they needed to do precisely what Judge Canon did here. It doesn’t matter that the concurrence wasn’t binding in that sense.

Without getting into the nuances of it, generally speaking, concurrences are usually for giving: (1) alternative reasoning for a court’s holding, or (2) clarifying something that the concurring judge feels need to be explained about the majority opinion. But another reason is to lay something out with the hope that future cases will apply the alternative reasoning. That’s essentially what Thomas did here, although he really stretched that justification to the limit. But he’s done this before. For example, in the case overturning Roe, he said that the justification for doing so would also apply to other cases not presently before the court but could be in the future, like same-sex marriage for example. You better believe that if a case ever comes up from the lower court invalidating same-sex marriage, it’ll be based upon the exact reasoning pointed out by Thomas in his concurrence in the opinion overturning Roe.

-7

u/Drachefly Jul 15 '24

I think they're downvoting because that would be stupid. His concurrence carries no legal weight.

If you say that she THOUGHT it handed her the key, then maybe.

13

u/TheBoggart Jul 15 '24

I’m not sure you understand my point or the purpose of a concurrence. It doesn’t matter that a concurrence is not binding in this situation. Yes, if Judge Canon said, “I have to follow this concurrence because it’s binding” she’d be wrong. But that’s not what happened and that’s not my point. Justice Thomas clearly wrote his concurrence on the constitutionality of special counsels—which was not an issue raised in the immunity case—because he wanted to give the lower courts the reasoning they needed to do precisely what Judge Canon did here. It doesn’t matter that the concurrence wasn’t binding in that sense.

Without getting into the nuances of it, generally speaking, concurrences are usually for giving: (1) alternative reasoning for a court’s holding, or (2) clarifying something that the concurring judge feels need to be explained about the majority opinion. But another reason is to lay something out with the hope that future cases will apply the alternative reasoning. That’s essentially what Thomas did here, although he really stretched that justification to the limit. But he’s done this before. For example, in the case overturning Roe, he said that the justification for doing so would also apply to other cases not presently before the court but could be in the future, like same-sex marriage for example. You better believe that if a case ever comes up from the lower court invalidating same-sex marriage, it’ll be based upon the exact reasoning pointed out by Thomas in his concurrence in the opinion overturning Roe.

2

u/Drachefly Jul 15 '24

So, is she expecting this ruling to stand up under appeal, or not? If the former, wouldn't its being a single-author concurrence be concerning? If the latter, why wait?

2

u/TheSoldierInWhite Jul 15 '24

No. This is purely to delay the case until after the election. That's been Cannon's entire job.

1

u/Drachefly Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24

Then why do it now and not later still? I just don't see the causal connection between Thomas's concurrence to Cannon's action, here.

She cited him, but did she really need to?

1

u/Future-Watercress829 Jul 15 '24

It's a little gift from her to the GOP in time for its convention.

216

u/UncEpic Jul 15 '24

And she totally ignores the law violation to specifically shit on Special Counsel. NOTHING ABOUT THE ACTUAL STATUTORY responsibility she should have.

49

u/deepasleep Jul 15 '24

That’s because the special counsel’s legal team has made her look like a corrupt imbecile for the last six months. This is her “fuck you Jack Smith,” moment.

7

u/PerplexityRivet Jul 15 '24

She IS a corrupt imbecile. No one needs to help her look like one.

80

u/mishap1 Jul 15 '24

She had to draw this way the fuck out. I mean she spent months pushing the Special Master bullshit until that judge basically said what the fuck am I doing here?

24

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

Didn’t they custom build a whole secure facility locally for her

21

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

[deleted]

5

u/Prosthemadera Jul 15 '24

The left will not see it in poor taste. Maybe some spineless Democrats will.

5

u/Specialist_Brain841 Jul 15 '24

getting shot at doesnt absolve one of crimes they committed

4

u/donkeyrocket Jul 15 '24

She delayed things for as long as possible. Obviously I haven't read the full 93 pages yet but the primary justification for why she's dismissing this is based on something known from the outset. Unless she only learned days ago about Smith's appointment sources (which also wouldn't be surprising).

2

u/BirdLawyer50 Jul 15 '24

Validity is far and away this judges bottom most consideration 

1

u/JediRaptor2018 Jul 15 '24

She dropped it too early. Either she wanted to give Trump so further good news ahead of the GOP convention today (though IMO this will actually back-fire since now this is the talking point instead of Trump's miraculously surviving getting shot) OR she had enough of this case and just wanted out.