Aileen Cannon ‘Stunning’ Refusal of Judge Request to Recuse From Trump Case

Aileen Cannon draws scrutiny after The New York Times reported she declined to recuse herself from overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents trial, despite two judges advising her to do so.

DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump with illegally storing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House in 2021 and resisting federal efforts to retrieve the files. Trump has guilt not guilty to all charges, maintains his innocence and has accused Smith of targeting him for political purposes. Cannon, a Trump appointee, has faced criticism over her handling of the case, as some legal experts view her rulings as too favorable to Trump.

On Thursday, the Times reported that two “more experienced” federal judges in Florida recommended that Cannon give the case to another judge after she was assigned to the case.

One of the judges suggested the case should be handled by a judge closer to Miami, where a courthouse had a secure facility that could hold the documents involved in the case. Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga then told Cannon it would be bad optics for her to oversee the trial after her handling of the investigation of Mar-a-Lago, which sparked criticism from legal experts.

However, Cannon declined to remove herself from the case.

The report was based on anonymous sources, and Newsweek could not independently verify it. The article sparked criticism from some legal experts.

Newsweek reached out to Cannon through the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida for comment via email.

Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi told Newsweek on Thursday that it is “unheard of” for judges to ask another judge to step back from a case.

There is nothing binding about the advice from those judges, but would only help Smith if he were to seek her removal from the case, he said, noting their recommendation was made “before the multitude of decisions that appear to favor President Trump.”

“It is abundantly clear that Judge Aileen has appeared to have lost all sense of objectivity in this matter,” he said.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek that judges advising her to recuse herself is “unusual,” but noted, “This is no usual judge and case.”

“Judge Cannon was very inexperienced when she took the federal bench, and it shows. She has ruled for Trump at almost every possible turn and entertained some defense arguments that no other judge would.”

The more experienced judges “saw this coming,” and it is “not surprising” they would have asked her to decline taking the case, he said.

Legal and political experts responded to the report on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

“Stunning the hubris…resulting in repeated miscarriages of justice,” posted MSNBC host and lawyer Katie Phang.

Political scientist Norman Ornstein wrote, “Aileen Cannon, even more corrupt than we thought.”

“Further evidence of Aileen Cannon’s determination to help Donald Trump escape justice in the open-and-shut documents case she oversees as a federal judge,” wrote journalist John Harwood.

Democratic strategist Ally Sammarco wrote, “Aileen Cannon needs to be removed from the documents case now.”

Conservative attorney Julie Kelly defended Cannon, writing, “I like her even more now. Chief judge in southern Florida–a GWB appointee–privately willing Judge Cannon to give the Trump documents case to another judge. She said no thank you.”

She added, “You now will see the same state media fluffers and ‘legal experts’ who insisted Juan Merchan shouldn’t recuse despite his legit conflicts again call for Cannon’s recusal. And I am sure the chief judge of the DC court never asked Judge Chutkan to recuse despite the numerous anti-Trump statements she made in court for J6 cases.”

Judge Altonaga, appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush, ruled during Trump’s arraignment in the case.