1/Judge Cannon has just denied Trump's motion to dismiss the classified documents case in Florida. Trump had argued the Presidential Records Act gave him the ability to designate classified material as personal records, shielding him from prosecution under the Espionage Act.
2/ In what looks, at least at first glance, like an effort at saving face, Judge Cannon also vigorously denies what she characterizes as the Special Counsel's request for a final decision on jury instructions.
3/The Judge's characterization of what Special Counsel asked for is incorrect. He wanted a ruling on the Presidential Records Act motion, the ruling she has now delivered. And she ruled in his favor.
4/I explained, in a new column just moments ago, why this was the only ruling she could reach. The PRA isn't a forgiveness mechanism for a former president who violates the rules about possessing classified information. open.substack.com/pub/joycevance…
5/ Contrary to what the judge says in her order, Jack Smith was clearly demanding a ruling on the PRA, the one she has now made. It's a big loss for Trump, delivered through the skillful legal maneuvering of the special counsel.
6/ Not only did the judge face the certain prospect of removal. If Smith, asked the circuit to force her to rule or appealed a ruling in Trump's favor, the 11th Circuit could have ordered her recusal. That's off the table, at least for now.
7/ If you've read this far, you're probably interested in knowing more about the details, which you can find here. You can sign up for my newsletter for free if you're interested in staying on top of issues at the intersection of law & politics. open.substack.com/pub/joycevance…
.@neal_katyal & others are making the point that because of the lack of finality in the judge's ruling it would be preferable for special counsel to go to the 11th Circuit & seek a final decision. I agree, but it will be more difficult to get mandamus following this ruling under the test I lay out in the newsletter.
9/& on this record, if Judge Cannon, tried to give a PRA instruction favorable to Trump at trial, the government would be entitled to take an immediate appeal, halting the proceedings until the 11th Circuit could rule on whether it was correct, or not.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/Public education is important. Well-educated citizens are more employable & prepared to compete in the 21st Century economy. Education reduces crime & improves public health & health equity. So of course, Project 2025 eliminates the Dept. Of Education. joycevance.substack.com/p/what-happens…
2/The Education Chapter in Project 2025 is 44 pages long. They are counting on the fact that no one will read it. So we looked at some of the details in Civil Discourse, my newsletter:
3/In the banal language of conservative policy, Project 2025 spells an end to public education in this country. It spells the establishment of religion, even at the college level, in ways that are inimical to creating a population that is taught to think, not what to think.
1/A week ago, Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation & architect of Project 2025, responded to Democrats plans to take on Project 2025. Roberts said, “Project 2025 will not be stopped,” & that Democrats are “more than welcome to try” to stop it.
2/On Tuesday, Roberts was on Steve Bannon’s War room. It was minus Bannon, of course, because he’s in federal prison. Roberts told a guest host: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be"
3/Is Roberts threatening people who speak out with violence? What if they protest? What if they vote? He’s saying it will get bloody. The more we learn about Project 2025 and the people behind it, the worse it gets. substack.com/redirect/f5e68…
1/ The more I read the immunity opinion, the clearer it becomes that the conservative majority is more concerned with concentrating power in the hands of the president than in how a president might abuse that power. Presidents as kings.
2/There is absolute immunity for a president acting within his constitutional authority and up to the full extent of the outer perimeter of whatever the Court says that authority is. Then, it gets even more troubling.
3/Presidents get “presumptive immunity" for their implied authority, what the Court characterizes as the "Twilight Zone" of presidential authority. They don't have to decide if it applies "at this stage" which suggests they expect further appeals once the district court does, but
1/There are a few bright lines for today's immunity decision. Trump's lawyer conceded at oral argument that they were only asking for immunity for *official acts* not private ones, what I've often viewed as President Trump vs. Candidate Trump. Assuming the Court agrees, they may
2/provide a test for lower courts to use in distinguishing between official and private acts. That's likely a fact-based test, which will require judges to let parties argue the evidence, hold an evidentiary hearing, or both. It's also possible that the Court will decide that...
3/some official conduct merits immunity-a president who orders a strike on foreign enemies based on the best advice of advisors in a time-constrained situation & one result is killing an American citizen, which is a fed'l crime. The Court might decide there is a narrow band of...
1/Loper Bright v. Raimondo, handed down on Friday by SCOTUS, will have a direct impact on all of our lives. It will upend agency regulations that are used to implement federal law. That sounds dry and far away from our daily lives. But it’s not.
2/The "administrative state" has operated since the Chevron decision in 1984 on the basic premise that Congress passes laws and agencies issue regulations that implement them. What happened when a regulated entity didn’t like an agency’s decision? They could sue.
3/The longstanding Chevron deference doctrine required courts to defer to agency action when the law was ambiguous and the agency’s view was reasonable. That came to an end on Friday, when Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority in no uncertain terms, “Chevron is overruled.”
2/My personal view is that this is a terrible decision that makes homelessness a crime. But it seemed clear during oral argument that this was where the majority was headed & today's decision unfortunately confirms that.
3/SCOTUS' reverses the longstanding Chevron deference doctrine, which requires courts to defer to decisions made using the expertise of federal agencies. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…