Connect with us

News

The Florida judge who just gave Trump a pass in documents case will now be judged herself

Published

on

The Florida judge who just gave Trump a pass in documents case will now be judged herself


What if I told you Judge Aileen Cannon has been working for years to get this case thrown out?

play

It would be easy to get angry at this point about how law and order is alleged to apply to everyone in America, but former President Donald Trump keeps being issued get-out-of-jail-free cards by judges he appointed.

Advertisement

It happened again Monday when the judge overseeing Trump’s federal case for allegedly taking and concealing classified documents after leaving office decided to rule counter to decades of established law and precedence to just toss the case out of court.

That’s frustrating to fair-minded people, no matter what political party you belong to. We’re told as children that nobody is above the law in America and we hope as adults to see that hold true.

But this would be a good time to press pause on our frustration because U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, nominated in April 2020 by Trump for the Southern District of Florida, is likely to face some judgment about her judgment.

We’ve been here before. It didn’t go so well for Cannon.

Judge Aileen Cannon did her part in the Trump document case

Advertisement

Cannon’s ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Instead, she grabbed hold of a fringe legal argument that Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed in November 2022 by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee the investigation, was improperly selected.

Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury and charged last summer. His entire legal strategy since then has been to delay delay delay while painting the prosecution as a political vendetta as he seeks another term as president.

In this, Cannon has always seemed more like an eager collaborator than an impartial judge, dragging out the process and leaving legal motions in limbo while sparring with prosecutors. All the while, the clock is ticking down to the Nov. 5 general election. A Trump victory would make the case simply vanish.

Decision to throw out document case started years ago

Advertisement

One of Trump’s opening gambits in the case in 2022, months before charges were filed, was to ask Cannon to prevent prosecutors from examining the thousands of documents it found – some marked confidential or top secret – in boxes strewn across the ex-president’s private club in Florida while executing a search warrant.

Cannon played along, shutting down the prosecutors and appointing a “special master” to sift through the documents.

Smith appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, known for a certain right-leaning tilt on the political scale, where the case was heard by three judges, including two appointed by Trump.

More GOP decisiveness: Republican reaction to Trump shooting only sows more division. Our leaders must stop it.

Those judges, in December 2022, reversed Cannon in a 21-page ruling that ended with what amounted to a scolding for her for what amounted to an attempt at a “radical reordering” to limit how federal judges act in criminal investigations.

Advertisement

“The law is clear,” they wrote. “We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.”

Let’s not forget the Supreme Court’s role in all this

That’s the way the law is supposed to work. Everyone is equal. Unless, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court decides otherwise.

The other recent development that has law-and-order fans freaking out was the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling that Trump has immunity for any “official acts” he took as president while attempting to overturn the 2020 election but can still be tried in a separate case in federal court in Washington, D.C., for any “unofficial acts” he took in that attempt.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined the court’s other six conservatives, three appointed by Trump, in that 6-3 ruling but couldn’t resist helping Trump on a legal point that was not part of the case – writing a concurring opinion that questioned whether Smith’s appointment as special counsel was legal.

Advertisement

Thomas opened the door for Cannon to toss the documents charges against Trump. And that’s just what she did.

Trump legal cases still out there to be dismissed

Cannon tucked her ruling Monday into a news cycle already ramped up to full bore, between the attempted assassination of Trump in Pennsylvania on Saturday and his selection of a vice presidential running mate at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on Monday evening.

Trump, who briefly called for unity after surviving Saturday, was right back at his usual rhetoric Monday, casting his legal troubles as “Political Attacks” while celebrating Cannon’s ruling on his social media site, calling for dismissal “of ALL the Witch Hunts.”

Trump’s abortion lies: I asked Trump’s campaign to prove that Democrats support infanticide. They couldn’t.

That included the case pending in Washington, a pending criminal case in Georgia on attempts to overturn the 2020 election there, the civil case where he was found liable for sexual assault, the criminal case in New York where he was convicted on 34 felony counts, and a civil case where he was fined $454 million for running a real estate business rife with fraud.

Advertisement

So many cases. And only one Judge Cannon.

Possible new member of SCOTUS?

Trump sees all politics as transactional – if he does something for you, he will expect something from you. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican and avid social media troll, said the quiet part out loud Monday in a post on the site previously known as Twitter with Cannon’s official portrait, calling her “Future Supreme Court Justice Cannon.”

Speaking of the Supreme Court, the justices took a pass in October 2022 when Trump asked them to overturn the 11th Circuit, which had just overturned Cannon.

If the special counsel successfully appeals the new Cannon ruling and revives the documents case, Trump will certainly try his luck again with our highest court.

Advertisement

Then we’ll find out just how many get-out-of-jail-free cards the conservative justices are willing to deal him.

Follow USA TODAY elections columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan

News

Judge Tosses Citizenship Law Aimed at New Voters in New Hampshire

Published

on

Judge Tosses Citizenship Law Aimed at New Voters in New Hampshire

A federal judge has struck down a New Hampshire law that blocked new voters from using a sworn affidavit to prove their citizenship in the absence of official documents such as a birth certificate or passport.

The decision, filed late Thursday by Judge Samantha D. Elliott of the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire, found that “eliminating the affidavits” as a means of proving citizenship “constitutes an unjustifiable burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and 14th Amendments.” The ruling immediately overturned the law, which was passed in 2024 and signed by the Republican governor at the time, Chris Sununu.

A spokesman for New Hampshire’s Justice Department said the state intended to appeal the decision.

The law “represents a common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections,” the spokesman, Michael Garrity, said in a statement on Friday.

The law, which created some of the strictest voter registration requirements in the country, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire on behalf of several groups, including the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire.

Advertisement

“New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure and accurate,” Henry Klementowicz, the state A.C.L.U.’s deputy legal director, said in a statement. “This law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot.”

Reports of wrongful voting in the state did not decline after the law’s passage, Judge Elliott noted, with a similar number of reports filed with the state attorney general in the year before the law was passed, and the year after.

The push for proof of citizenship has been at the core of Republican-backed efforts to change voting rules, ever since President Trump and his allies began promoting baseless conspiracy theories over the past decade that there has been widespread voter fraud by noncitizens.

Mr. Trump put documentary proof of citizenship at the center of his effort to change the country’s voting laws last year. He first signed an executive order in March 2025 that partly sought to establish such a requirement for federal elections, but that provision of the order was rejected by federal courts.

Republicans in Congress then took up the charge, making documentary proof of citizenship central to their federal voting legislation, known as the SAVE America Act. But the measure has stalled in Congress, where Republicans do not have enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster of the bill.

Advertisement

With the bill in limbo, Mr. Trump has threatened not to sign any other legislation until Republicans reform the filibuster to pass it, a procedural move known as the “nuclear option.” But his threats have not moved many Republicans to make the move.

There is no evidence of widespread voting by noncitizens, and the Trump administration’s efforts to prove these conspiracies are not succeeding: Out of 49.5 million voter registrations that have been checked by the beginning of 2026, the Department of Homeland Security referred around 0.02 percent of the names for further investigation. Any actual proven cases are likely to be a fraction of that fraction.

Even before the new law was passed, New Hampshire’s voting access had been more limited than most states’. It did not offer early in-person voting, or registration by mail for most voters. And it removed inactive voters after four years. More than 195,000 voters were removed in 2021 alone, according to a summary of evidence in the 100-page court decision.

New Hampshire does offer same-day registration on Election Day, an option that was used by voters some 350,000 times from 2016 to 2024, witnesses testified.

Under the law that was struck down, voters who showed up to register could present a birth certificate, a passport, naturalization papers “or any other reasonable documentation.” But they could no longer, as an alternative, sign an affidavit stating they were 18, a resident of the municipality they were voting in and a citizen of the United States.

Advertisement

“It may be tempting for some to describe the Qualified Voter Affidavit as an exception to the proof-of-citizenship requirement, but it is not,” Judge Elliott wrote in her decision. “A sworn affidavit capable of exposing an affiant to criminal prosecution is a method of proving citizenship.”

“Moreover,” she added, “the evidence shows that it is the only method of proof available to a significant number of New Hampshire voters.”

Experts testified in a trial this year that 5,000 to 30,000 residents in the state did not have documentary proof of citizenship. They said that 14,700 voters had used the affidavit option to register to vote from April to November of 2024.

Continue Reading

News

Which first lady feared her husband might be having a stroke? The quiz knows

Published

on

Which first lady feared her husband might be having a stroke? The quiz knows

From left: Jeff Bezos, Roland Garros, Jill Biden.

Marco Bertorello/AFP via Getty Images; Branger/Getty Images/Hulton Archive; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Marco Bertorello/AFP via Getty Images; Branger/Getty Images/Hulton Archive; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

This week, the pope took a stand on artificial intelligence in an encyclical Google Gemini called “historic and highly ambitious” and an “aggressive, uncompromising critique.” Thanks, Gemini! Enjoy the quiz, y’all.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Becerra leads governor’s race, with Hilton and Steyer in tight contest for second spot, poll finds

Published

on

Becerra leads governor’s race, with Hilton and Steyer in tight contest for second spot, poll finds

On the cusp of California’s gubernatorial June 2 primary, a poll shows voters are closely divided among three candidates vying to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom at a perilous moment in history for the state and the nation.

Among likely California voters, 25% support Xavier Becerra, a Democrat and former Biden Cabinet secretary, according to the survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and released Thursday. Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator and British political strategist, has the backing of 21%, while 19% backed billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmental activist Tom Steyer, a Democrat.

California gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra takes a selfie while campaigning Tuesday at an event in San Francisco.

(Benjamin Fanjoy / Getty Images)

Advertisement

The survey provided the clearest indication yet that the three have separated themselves from the rest of the field. Support increased for Becerra, Hilton and Steyer since the last Berkeley IGS poll in March. Becerra leapfrogged everyone. In early March, he wallowed near the bottom of the pack at just 5% support among likely voters, and now is the front-runner.

The other candidates floundered. Support for Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, dropped 5%, and he now finds himself in a distant fourth place. Former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine dropped by almost half to 7%. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — all Democrats — remained mired in the single digits.

Poll director Mark DiCamillo cautioned that it remains unclear which candidates will finish in first and second place in the June 2 primary, a pivotal question since only the top two finishers will advance to the November general election regardless of party affiliation. The low voter turnout thus far makes predicting the outcome especially difficult.

Although every registered voter in California was sent a mail-in ballot, many have not returned them or dropped them off at voting locations — a telltale sign of the uncertain nature of this year’s governor’s race. The survey, which included all 61 of the gubernatorial candidates on the ballot, found that Democratic turnout thus far is noticeably lower compared with past primary elections, DiCamillo said.

Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, arrives for a news conference

Steve Hilton arrives for a news conference at the San Jose Diridon rail station on Tuesday.

(Jason Henry/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

“We’re assuming that … the Democrats will in fact turn out in the final week after we had concluded our poll and begin to make up ground on what looks like an early lead for Hilton, and those voters favor Becerra,” DiCamillo said.

The survey, conducted between May 19 and 24, found that likely Democratic voters favored Becerra over Steyer by 11 percentage points. Voters registered as “no party preference” were evenly divided among Becerra, Steyer and Hilton. Among likely Republican voters, Hilton led Bianco by almost 2 to 1.

Becerra also had a notable edge over Steyer among women and Latino voters, while Steyer had an advantage among Black voters. Hilton was favored over the two Democrats among self-identified libertarians and among voters in Orange County, the Central Valley and northern coast and Sierra region.

The poll found that 7% of voters remained undecided.

For the first time in more than a quarter of a century, the contest to lead the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy has consistently lacked a front-runner despite a plethora of candidates.

Advertisement

Two of California’s best-known Democrats, former Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, both toyed with a run for governor before deciding not to run, which contributed to the sluggishness of the race. The 2026 campaign for governor also languished in the shadow of the mayhem stirred up by President Trump, including his immigration raids throughout Southern California, and the devastation wrought by the 2025 Pacific Palisades and Altadena wildfires.

But a whirlwind of recent developments has drawn attention to the race.

Former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), once a front-runner in the contest, withdrew from the race and resigned from Congress in the aftermath of multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and assault that he denies.

Tom Steyer, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, during a campaign event

Tom Steyer takes part in a campaign event in Santa Rosa on Wednesday.

(David Paul Morris / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Additionally, record-breaking amounts of money have flowed into the race. Steyer has smashed state self-funding records by contributing $212 million to his campaign as of Tuesday, according to the California secretary of state’s office. Nearly $85 million has been donated to independent expenditure committees by corporations, labor unions, tech titans, Native American tribes and other special interests, most of which will have policy interests that will be in front of the next governor.

Although the 2026 California governor’s race lacks the allure of recent contests that featured candidates such as global movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger, political scion Jerry Brown and former San Francisco mayor and likely 2028 presidential candidate Gavin Newsom, it is unfolding at a crucial time for Californians.

The state’s most vulnerable residents are facing severe reductions to medical care because of looming federal healthcare funding cuts, and California’s budget, already volatile because of its reliance on the state’s wealthiest residents, may grow more unpredictable. California’s highest-in-the-nation gas prices increased even more because of the U.S.-Iran war, adding to the state’s entrenched affordability crisis, which has driven many residents out of the state.

The cost of living, homelessness and public safety were among the top concerns expressed by voters, according to the poll. Protecting voting rights was also supported by most voters, though their underlying concerns could be starkly different based on their political views.

Democrats have been focused on the disenfranchisement of voters, a fear that has heightened in the aftermath of a recent Supreme Court decision that gutted a section of the Voting Rights Act that forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress. Republicans echo President Trump’s claims of elections being rigged.

Advertisement
Chad Bianco is interviewed after the California Gubernatorial debate

Chad Bianco is interviewed May 6 after the gubernatorial debate at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Voters split largely along party lines about issues such as Trump’s policies about climate change, immigration and taxes.

Voters’ uncertainty in the governor’s race is partly driven by California’s unique, voter-approved “jungle” primary system, in which the two candidates who win the most votes in the June 2 primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party affiliation.

Although the state’s voters are largely registered Democrats, the party’s leaders feared earlier this year that they would splinter among the multiple Democrats on the ballot, leading to Hilton and Bianco advancing to the November general election and ensuring that a Republican would be elected governor. Bianco had the backing of 11% in the new Berkeley survey.

Advertisement

The Republicans were once roughly tied in polls, until Trump endorsed Hilton in April. More than one-third of likely Republican voters said Trump’s endorsement of Hilton made them more likely to support him. Among voters who identified with the “Make America Great Again” movement, nearly two-thirds supported Hilton while less than 3 in 10 backed Bianco.

Though Bianco’s followers seem to be more passionate, “Hilton has got the much broader base of support, and then he got Trump’s endorsement,” DiCamillo said.

He added that Hilton’s rise is unusual in California, where statewide candidates typically spend enormous sums of money to raise their visibility among the state’s 23.1 million registered voters.

“What’s interesting about Hilton is that he hasn’t really done much of his campaigning in the traditional way. He hasn’t run huge amounts of television advertising, you don’t see his name out there in the traditional media, other than in free media,” DiCamillo said. “You can see that in the data, because almost a third of voters still have no opinion of Hilton … about what it was back in March, which is startling for a candidate who is among the leaders.”

Democrats’ fear of being locked out of the November general election led party leaders and allies to effectively urge low-polling candidates to drop out of the race in remarkable public statements in March.

Advertisement

The tables have since turned — the prospect of two Republicans winning the top spots in the June primary appear nonexistent, while polling shows a small possibility of two Democrats advancing to the general election.

“I’m not saying it’s likely, but it’s possible that two Democrats could emerge, and that would have huge implications on turnout in the [November] election,” DiCamillo said, pointing to California congressional races that could shape control of the U.S. House of Representatives. “If you don’t have a Republican at the top of the ticket, it would be dismal for the Republicans’ chances.”

The poll of 8,578 registered California voters was conducted online in English and Spanish and has a margin of error of about 2 percentage points in either direction.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending