There is no legal basis for disqualification.
South Florida federal judge Aileen Cannon has declined to recuse herself from the criminal case of Ryan Routh, who was charged last month with attempting to kill former president Trump.
Routh had claimed that Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, should step aside from his prosecution by the Justice Department because Trump has lavishly praised her, particularly after she decided to dismiss an indictment brought against him by Biden-Harris DOJ special counsel Jack Smith. That indictment, sometimes described as the “Mar-a-Lago documents” case, charged Trump with 32 felony charges of mishandling national-defense intelligence as well as eight counts of obstructing justice. Cannon dismissed the indictment because she found that Smith’s special counsel appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland failed to comply with the Constitution’s appointments clause.
Nevertheless, Cannon ruled against Trump on several matters attendant to the complex prosecution. In addition, prior to dismissing the indictment, she pressed Smith and the Justice Department to propose alternatives to dismissal, knowing there was one ready to hand: Garland could simply have assigned Smith to work under the supervision of the Biden-appointed, Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Garland declined to do this, preferring to appeal Cannon’s dismissal — which Smith and DOJ have done.
In declining to recuse, as the New York Times reports, Cannon rejected the notion that she has any meaningful relationship with Trump — whom she has never met or spoken with except during his appearances in her courtroom in connection with the Mar-a-Lago document case. (Although a president nominates federal judges, the nomination process is dominated by elected officials — especially U.S. senators of the president’s party — in the state where the relevant judicial seat is located. It is not uncommon for a president to rely on the senators’ recommendation, and no meeting with the nominee is necessary.) As to Trump, Cannon stated, “I have no relationship to the alleged victim in any reasonable sense of the phrase.”
Regarding Trump’s praise for her, the judge observed, “I have no control over what private citizens, members of the media, or public officials or candidates say about me or my judicial rulings.” She added that she was unconcerned about political consequences from her rulings or how the media covers them.
As the Times elaborates, a recent ABC News report said there was an internal Trump-campaign document listing Cannon as a potential choice for a job in the Justice Department or White House Counsel’s Office if Trump is elected. There is no indication that Cannon had anything to do with the appearance of her name in that context, nor is it obvious that she’d be interested in giving up a coveted lifetime appointment to the federal bench for a temporary job in the executive branch. In any event, the judge said the prospect of even a “judicial promotion” would not affect her objectivity. She correctly added that a judge should not recuse herself based on “highly tenuous speculation.”
Notably, the Justice Department has not sought Judge Cannon’s recusal from the Mar-a-Lago documents case or Routh’s case — to both of which she was randomly assigned.
As I recounted earlier this month, an Illinois man named Eric Rennert was charged with threatening to kidnap and kill Judge Cannon and members of her family. The Justice Department’s indictment indicates that Rennert was animated by Cannon’s rulings in the Mar-a-Lago case.