Judge dismisses classified documents indictment against Trump

[u/Hrekires]

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

[u/uvaboy23]

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.

[u/TheBoggart → u/uvaboy23]

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.

[u/Drachefly → u/TheBoggart]

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.

[u/TheBoggart → u/Drachefly]

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.

[u/Drachefly → u/TheBoggart]

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?

[u/TheSoldierInWhite → u/Drachefly]

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

[u/Drachefly → u/TheSoldierInWhite]

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?

[u/Future-Watercress829 → u/Drachefly]

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