Left: Aileen M. Cannon speaks remotely during a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight nomination hearing to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 2020, in Washington (U.S. Senate via AP). Right: Ryan Wesley Routh arrested by deputies in Florida on Sept. 15, 2024 (Martin County Sheriff’s Office).
The Donald Trump-appointed federal judge who tossed out the former president’s Mar-a-Lago classified documents prosecution and reportedly burnished her perceived credentials as a candidate for U.S. attorney general, if Trump wins the 2024 election, defended herself and her rulings on Tuesday while declining to step aside from presiding over the attempted Trump assassination case against Ryan Routh.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon completely rejected Routh’s recusal demand after walking through his arguments one by one, appearing to be annoyed at one point that she had to the say the Trump-related cases have been assigned to her randomly.
How we got here
Ryan Routh, a detained 58-year-old convicted felon, was arrested in Florida in mid-September after a Secret Service agent allegedly spotted him with a rifle “in the exterior brush along the fence line near the 6th hole putting green” at the Trump International Golf Club as the former president golfed one hole behind. Authorities have said that the agent opened fire, leading Routh to flee the scene in a Nissan Xterra.
After he was caught, the feds said they found a letter addressed to the “world” stating that “[t]his was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I am so sorry I failed you.” Investigators also said that Routh ” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>had been camped out for some 12 hours apparently waiting for Trump to golf.
Later in September, Cannon was assigned the case.
What happened next
In mid-October, Routh’s team of public defenders for the first time demanded that Cannon recuse herself from the case, arguing that her appointment by Trump, her dismissal of the Mar-a-Lago case, Trump’s repeated praise of her as “brilliant” in public, and the “prospect” of a potential “promotion” to the U.S. Supreme Court all raised questions about whether she could be impartial in the attempted assassination case given her “relationship to the alleged victim.”
Days later, prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida responded by backing Cannon, saying that Routh had cited no authority requiring her recusal and offered little more than speculation without a “sufficient legal or factual basis[.]”
Later on that day, ABC News reported that a Trump campaign “Transition Planning: Legal Principals” document listed Cannon second to former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton on a list of potential AGs.
The next morning, Routh’s lawyers reiterated their recusal demand and cited the ABC report [bolding ours]:
This is not the ordinary situation where a Judge is evaluating an official policy adopted by the President who nominated her. Rather, Mr. Trump is the alleged victim of an assassination attempt; he thus has a personal stake in the outcome. And in the mind of the public, that Mr. Trump appointed Your Honor may add to the appearance of partiality given that he has publicly praised Your Honor for rulings in his earlier case; and were Mr. Trump to become President again, he would have authority to elevate Your Honor to a federal appellate court (including the U.S. Supreme Court) or to high-ranking positions in the Executive Branch. See, e.g., Katherine Faulders, et al., Judge Who Tossed Trump’s Classified Docs Case on List of Proposed Candidates for Attorney General, ABC News (Oct. 22, 2024); Jess Bravin & C. Ryan Barber, Trump Loyalists Push for a Combative Slate of New Judges, Wall St. Journal (Oct. 14, 2024).
The defense also claimed that prosecutors only recently disclosed, albeit not in a public filing, that Cannon is a high school classmate of a member of the prosecution team and that she years later was a guest at his wedding:
Finally, there is one new, additional matter that Mr. Routh must raise. After Mr. Routh filed his motion, the government advised defense counsel for the first time that one member of the prosecution’s team—Christopher Browne of the Justice Department’s National Security Section in Miami—attended high school with Your Honor, and Your Honor attended Mr. Browne’s wedding nine years ago. It is unclear why the government believed that this information was important enough to share with defense counsel but not important enough to include in its response. And it is unclear why, despite hundreds of able prosecutors in this District and around the country, the government elected to staff its team in this high-profile case with a prosecutor who enjoys a longstanding, personal relationship with the presiding judge. In the mind of the public, this fact could further add to the appearance of partiality.
From there, Routh’s lawyers — based on what “some” have said — questioned whether the attempted assassination case had actually been randomly assigned to Cannon.
“[G]iven the low odds of this Court being assigned three cases involving Mr. Trump, some have questioned whether the cases have been assigned at random,” the defense said.
The defense additionally said Cannon, at the time a prosecutor, was a guest at the wedding nearly a decade ago of one of the assigned Routh prosecutors.
One day after Routh’s latest reply, Trump during a radio interview again praised Cannon as “brilliant” and “brave” and said he would fire Jack Smith “within two seconds” if he wins the 2024 election.
How Cannon responded
The judge on Tuesday said flatly that none of the “factors” Routh mentioned requires her to step aside.
“Defendant cites a series of factors which he believes, when viewed in their totality, create an appearance of partiality,” Cannon wrote. “None warrants recusal, whether examined individually or together.”
After noting the fact that Trump appointed her does not by itself mean she needs to recuse herself (see: Trump v. Clinton), Cannon said she has “no control” over what Trump says about her, that she has “no ‘relationship to the alleged victim’ in any reasonable sense of the phrase” (since she’s never met him or spoken with him, “except in connection with his required presence at an official judicial proceeding, through counsel,” that the “prospect of a judicial promotion” is wholly “speculative,” and that the Routh case was definitely assigned to her randomly.
“As Defendant acknowledges, I have no control over what private citizens, members of the media, or public officials or candidates elect to say about me or my judicial rulings,” Cannon wrote. “Nor am I concerned about the political consequences of my rulings or how those rulings might be viewed by ‘some in the media.””
“I follow my oath to administer justice faithfully and impartially, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of this country,” she added.
Cannon appeared particularly annoyed by having to swat down “media rumors” about how the case was assigned.
“This case, like the prior cited cases involving former President Trump, were randomly assigned to me through the Clerk’s random case assignment system. Period,” Cannon said, with emphasis. “I will not be guided by highly inaccurate, uninformed, or speculative opinions to the contrary.”
She also called it “a strained assumption to begin with” that the Routh case “can even be said to qualify as a ‘same or related’ case as compared to the cited cases involving former President Trump” — that is, the Mar-a-Lago criminal case she dismissed and the Mar-a-Lago civil case that saw her special master regime overturned by the 11th Circuit.
“I see no valid basis for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 or the Due Process Clause,” Cannon concluded. “The Motion is accordingly DENIED.”
Read Cannon’s denial here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
