Judge Cannon 'on thin ice' after latest ruling in Mar-a-Lago case: expert

Judge Aileen Cannon may have placed herself closer to getting removed from overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case.

The Trump-appointed federal judge has raised eyebrows with some of her decisions that seem to favor the former president, who's been accused of the mishandling of sensitive government materials, but legal analyst David Lat said Cannon could have jeopardized her role in the case by accepting a pair of briefs arguing it should be thrown out, reported Newsweek.

"I would kind of put Judge Cannon in the probation category," Lat told former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara on his "Stay Tuned" podcast. "I don't think the 11th Circuit would remove her just yet from this case, but I think she's on thin ice."

Cannon agreed to consider amicus briefs filed by former Trump staffer Stephen Miller's America First Foundation and former attorney general Edwin Meese advocating for the case to be dismissed because, they argue, special counsel Jack Smith does not have the authority to prosecute because he was not serving as a U.S. attorney prior to his appointment and was not confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Some experts have highlighted it as the latest in a series of questionable decisions.

"Smith is the classic 'emperor with no clothes.' He has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Tom Brady, Lionel Messi, or Kanye West," wrote Meese, who served as attorney general under Ronald Reagan.

ALSO READ: 'What a piece of work': Marjorie Greene's 'childish' SOTU response trashed by Senate Dems

"The Court should grant the Motion to Dismiss on the Appointments Clause issue, and do so prior to ruling on the other Motions to Dismiss pending in this case."

Judges are typically not removed from a case unless they "repeatedly mess up," Lat said.

But he listed a series of blunders, including issuing an order prohibiting prosecutors from further review of any of the materials seized during a search of Trump's home at Mar-a-Lago in 2022.

She was also accused of bias towards Trump after telling prosecutors to hand over unredacted material in discovery.

Accepting the amicus briefs could be seen as another questionable decision, Lat said.

"If she made another error like she did in the pre-indictment phase of this case where she basically was telling the executive, the U.S. attorney's office, that they couldn't investigate something, which is really not her province to do, then I think she could get booted," Lat told Bharara.

Cannon wrote in court documents that the two briefs filed by conservative advocates, "May be of considerable help" to her, which prompted concern that she might be willing to dismiss the case before it reaches trial, but some legal experts say that's essentially boilerplate language.

"All Judge Cannon is saying is that these briefs may be filed," said Eric Columbus, who litigated during the Jan. 6 committee's investigation. "The 'may be of considerable help' language comes from the relevant Supreme Court rule regarding amicus briefs (there's no corresponding rule in district courts) and these are the only two amicus briefs filed so far."