NEW: Judge Cannon DISMISSES the superseding indictment against Donald Trump.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… The kick in the gut:

ICYMI: Yesterday, July 1, Donald Trump submitted a premotion letter (meaning asking for leave from the court to be able to file a motion) to file a motion to set aside the jury verdict based on SCOTUS' decision on Trump's criminal immunity. The premotion letter notes that on March 7th, Trump filed a motion in limine (a pre-trial motion seeking a ruling from the Court) "to preclude evidence of his official acts based on the presidential immunity doctrine." Trump also sought a delay of the trial based on the pending SCOTUS oral arguments at the time.

Judge Merchan declined to delay the trial and also didn't sustain the defense's objections when the DA's Office used that evidence during the jury trial.

The third SCOTUS opinion today: the immunity decision. Written by Justice Roberts. Held: "Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

The second SCOTUS opinion today: Netchoice LLC v. Paxton. Also decided jointly with Moody v. Netchoice.

Today's first SCOTUS opinion: Corner Post Inc. v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. A 6-3 decision. The court holds that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge an agency action first comes into being when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.

Tomorrow, at 10 a.m. ET, we finally will learn what SCOTUS has decided regarding Trump's claim of absolute criminal immunity. He argues that if he has absolute criminal immunity, then his indictment must be dismissed.

Recall the question presented was: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office." Oral arguments (2 hours and 39 minutes) took place on April 25, 2024, almost 10 weeks ago.

Since that date, Trump has been convicted, by a jury of his peers, of 34 felonies in the state of New York. He continues to face indictments by Special Counsel Jack Smith in Florida and DC, as well as by Fulton County DA, Fani Willis, in Georgia.

The second SCOTUS opinion today: Loper v. Raimondo (the Chevron Doctrine). Chevron is overruled.

Trump: I agree with SCOTUS’ decision to allow the abortion pill and I won’t do anything about that. Trump: I believe in abortion exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother.

JUST IN: Judge Cannon entering an Order denying Trump's motion for a Franks hearing, but reserving ruling on the balance of his "Motion for Relief Relating to the Mar-a-lago Raid and Unlawful Piercing of Attorney-Client Privilege." Cannon finds that Trump has not made the requisite showing that the search warrant affidavit contains "any material false statements or omissions." As such, he doesn't get a Franks hearing.

The second and FINAL SCOTUS opinion today: Snyder v. US. Written by Justice Kavanaugh. The vote is 6-3. Jackson dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.

The first SCOTUS opinion today: Murthy v. Missouri. Written by Justice Barrett. The vote is 6-3, with Alito dissenting joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.

David Harbach then argued on behalf of the Special Counsel.

Harbach: For purposes of a Franks hearing, the defense has to make a substantial, preliminary showing that false statements were made by the affiant with an intentional or reckless disregard for the truth. The defense bears the burden of showing that absent those omissions and misrepresentations being made, there was no probable cause. Harbach: The defense must show that there were deliberate falsehoods made or a reckless disregard for the truth accompanied by an offer of proof. It cannot be just conclusory and it has to be more than a desire to cross-examine the agent.

The defense has not shown any of that here.

[My apologies for the delay...traffic and life happened.]

Once again, Jack Smith appeared in court. David Harbach handled the oral arguments on behalf of the SCO. Emil Bove argued on behalf of Trump.

Cannon began the hearing by announcing that the parties had previously been in a sealed session in the morning. Bove alleged defects in the search warrant used at MAL. He argued that the SW lacked particularity in the things to be seized and the places to be searched. He argued that Trump's medical records, tax documents, accounting records, and passports were seized and that is proof that the warrant didn't give sufficient particularity as to what could be seized by the FBI agents.

Late last night, SC Jack Smith filed the Government's Response in Opposition to Trump's Motion to Dismiss Based on Spoliation of Evidence in Violation of Due Process.

Here, in the intro, we are reminded how Donald Trump handled some of our nation's most classified secrets: Trump now claims that "the precise order of the items within the boxes when they left the White House was critical to his defense, and, what’s more, that FBI agents executing the search warrant in August 2022 should have known that."

However, as SC asserts: "...at every stage the agents have maintained the integrity of each container in which the evidence was found, that is, box-to-box integrity."

Todd Blanche then argued for Trump against the bond modification.

Blanche: There is no actual connection between Trump's posts/statements and a danger to law enforcement. Blanche: There is no threat to FBI agents. No incitement to violence. The attacks are clearly against Pres. Biden. Trump is just upset that the Biden Administration raided his home with agents authorized by Biden's DOJ.

For this afternoon's bond modification hearing, Special Counsel Jack Smith was back in court along with his team. For this motion, David Harbach argued on behalf of SCO. And Todd Blanche argued on behalf of Donald Trump. Harbach: The one purpose for this motion to modify is to protect law enforcement witnesses involved in this case. The Court can modify based on the Bail Reform Act, as well as the Court's inherent authority to ensure the integrity of the proceedings.

Next up was James Pearce, on behalf of the Special Counsel's Office.

Pearce: Special Counsel is independent counsel that can access Congressionally-enacted permanent, indefinite funding.

Cannon: So it's limitless appropriations?
Pearce: Yes, consistent with the idea of "permanent, indefinite appropriations." Cannon: Can you provide some examples of limitless appropriations?
Pearce: Yes, I can think of two. And it means that they are not limited by time or by amount.

Special Counsel, Jack Smith, was present today in court today. He sat behind counsel's table. Arguing on behalf of the DOJ today was James Pearce. Arguing on behalf of Donald Trump was Emil Bove (Todd Blanche was also present). Counsel for Co-Defendants, Carlos De Oliveira and Walt Nauta, were also present. No defendants were present. Bove: SCO (Special Counsel's Office) should not have access to the “permanent, indefinite appropriations” on which it is currently relying as a funding source.

Bove: The SCO was not properly established by “other law” (similar to the arguments that the defense used on Friday) and that the “independent counsel” that Congress authorized to use the permanent, indefinite appropriations are different than special counsel.

Good morning ☀️ from the Alto Lee Adams, Sr. federal courthouse in Ft. Pierce, Florida, where we will begin Day 2 of hearings on various motions before Judge Aileen Cannon. This morning at 10 am we start with a hearing on Trump‘s Motion to Dismiss based upon the Appropriations Clause, challenging specifically the funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

-Bove's Rebuttal: “The thrust of so much of the opposition to this motion,” Bove said, is that "we have done this frequently in the past [with appointing other SCs]" and therefore ignoring the text of the relevant statutes is okay.

Congressional acquiescence “has to fall away” and the text of the relevant statutory clauses must be read together.

Bove argued that “official” in the statute means employee, not inferior officer.

“Why would Congress not just use ‘employee?’” asked Cannon.

“I don’t have a good answer for that. Congress could have said that. I wish that they did,” he answered. Bove on rebuttal: He once again brought up the Special Counsel’s “emphatic” statement to Judge Chutkan in DC in December that there is “no coordination” with the AG on this case. Bove said that the SCO needs to prove that they’re in line with the DOJ manual and demonstrate the department’s oversight.

MAL classified docs:

- Matthew Seligman, an attorney, is arguing before Judge Cannon on behalf of Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment.

- Seligman: the special counsel meets the definition of an inferior officer, allowing the attorney general to appoint them. He pointed to Supreme Court precedent upholding independent counsels - which are if anything more independent than special counsels - as inferior officers.

- Seligman: the most important factor in determining whether an official is an inferior officer is whether the officer has a superior.

“The order appointing Jack Smith could just be changed” by Garland, Seligman said, giving him sufficient oversight, though he conceded when pressed by Judge Cannon that the “day to day supervision of litigation is not there.”

Nonetheless, the regulations still provide guidelines for when the AG can overrule decisions made by the special counsel. - Josh Blackman argues on behalf of Landmark Legal Foundation in support of Trump’s position.

- Blackman: Between AG Garland not giving Smith a specific set of regulations to abide by as the Nixon AG did, as well as the Nixon AG “illegally” allowing Congress the power to remove the special counsel, Blackman says the prosecution’s reliance on Nixon is weakened.
- Blackman says “Nixon is persuasive but not binding,” and holds no bearings on the merit of the case.