Thanks nearly exclusively to the rulings of four judges he nominated, Donald Trump is on the verge of escaping unharmed from his four criminal prosecutions.
The three justices Trump appointed to the Supreme Court voted unanimously in favor of presidents’ immunity from prosecution for official behavior, casting doubt on his New York conviction and halting his prosecution on allegations of attempting to undermine the 2020 election in various jurisdictions. Judge Aileen Cannon, who he appointed to a federal court in Florida, then granted him still another triumph by dropping all charges against him related to the alleged concealment and hoarding of secret documents.
While accepting the Republican nomination on Thursday, Trump shouted out her choice. “Aileen Cannon, a highly esteemed federal judge in Florida, handed down a major ruling,” he announced.
What the experts call “extraordinary luck and timing” is behind Trump’s winning streak. He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court, making him the first president to do so since Reagan. Shortly after, he faced criminal allegations that ultimately ended up before the judges he had appointed.
“This is a perfect example of serendipity, how the occurrence of events and trials and tribulations of the judicial process have all combined to work in favor of Donald Trump,” remarks Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor and civil litigator.
According to those experts, it’s also because conservatives, who had previous disappointments with judicial appointments who ultimately betrayed their party, had began honing a plan to select judges who would more consistently rule in their favor when Trump was in office. It is unclear if President Joe Biden will have the same influence on the judiciary as his predecessor, although he has also picked judges with more consistently leftist backgrounds.
“Today, given that politics are so critical in gaining a judicial appointment, I can understand how that sort of fear can spread,” commented David Zaring, a professor of legal studies at the Wharton School of Business. Appointing three Supreme Court justices in a single term is very unusual, so [Trump] really got lucky. Following Trump’s understanding, the Supreme Court issued a highly favorable verdict.
Most people think that the most obvious issue Trump is facing involves the substance of the allegations, but Cannon’s decision in the documents case has nothing to do with that. All charges were dismissed by Cannon because he determined that Attorney General Merrick Garland exceeded his authority by appointing Smith as special counsel. Although legal experts predicted that the ruling would be overturned on appeal, it nevertheless virtually eliminated any chance that Trump could face trial this year, which were already minimal.
She has a track record in this prosecution, so it’s understandable why people would assume that… Zaring claimed, “she’s in the bag for the man who appointed her.” He acknowledged that the verdict was based on conservative principles and had some substance, but he still thinks it will be reversed. “Regrettably, I believe it will be very difficult to prevent individuals from reaching that judgment.”
The case of Cannon stands out as an extreme example. Just days after Trump’s reelection loss to Joe Biden in 2020, she was confirmed to the bench. Her decision to allow the defense’s longshot request to have an independent monitor examine the FBI’s seizure materials from Mar-a-Lago two years later stalled the inquiry and earned her widespread criticism.
As part of his plan to prolong his criminal prosecutions beyond the 2024 election, Trump’s conservative appeals court panel—which included two of his appointees—finally scolded Cannon and unfroze the case. However, the postponement helped defense efforts to do just that.
Kenneth Manning, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, who researched Trump’s associates on the bench for a 2020 article, remarked, “Talk about pure luck.” With Aileen Cannon in their possession, they made an inside straight draw. When federal prosecutors decided to bring charges against him in Florida rather than in Washington, D.C.
Those who defend Trump point to the fact that his own judges have issued positive opinions as evidence that they are prepared to make controversial, but legally sound, decisions.
Judicial appointees of Trump’s are siding with him. Justices nominated by Democrats are working against him, according to ex-president’s lawyer Tim Parlatore. “The public’s faith in the system is appropriately eroded because judges occasionally engage in politically motivated behavior.”
While Parlatore acknowledged that the Trump-nominated judges are making sound decisions, he argued that the system would work better if it were more difficult to predict outcomes solely by looking at the party of the president who chose them.
Despite his protracted battle with the law, not every judge appointed by Trump has found in his favor. His attempt to prevent the Jan. 6 select committee from accessing his White House records was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2022, and the court also rejected his attempt to freeze the inquiry into the materials, which he had supported with Cannon.
A number of Trump’s appointments firmly condemned his and his supporters’ attempts to reverse election outcomes in a number of swing states before he departed the White House. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed by Trump, gave a significant order that supported the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. This decision now contradicts Cannon’s assessment of Smith. However, going against the grain may be becoming more common.
Judges nominated to the appellate court by Trump were younger, more likely to have experience in politics or the executive branch, and to have “a ton of exposure to the conservative legal establishment,” according to research by Wharton professor Jonathan Zaring.
It wasn’t always like that, he remarked. “Unfortunately,” Zaring broke the news. “I believe that presidents of both parties have done an excellent job of selecting judges who share their ideology.”
