In a highly unconventional move, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has issued a key ruling on who may present oral arguments regarding the potential dismissal of former President Donald Trump's classified documents charges.

Cannon has authorized non-parties to speak during a hearing about dismissing former President Donald Trump’s case, drawing strong reactions from legal experts, as Newsweek reports.

Trump's Legal Battle Expands with New Voices

Former President Donald Trump, facing 40 federal felony charges brought by DOJ special counsel Jack Smith, continues to maintain his innocence. The charges allege he improperly retained classified materials and obstructed efforts to retrieve them. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Trump's case is overseen by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, whom Trump appointed in 2020. Recently, Cannon said she would allow three lawyers, Josh Blackman, Gene Schaerr, and Matthew Seligman, to participate in the June 21 hearing by making oral arguments. This hearing will consider a motion to dismiss Trump's federal felony charges, arguing that Smith's appointment was unlawful.

Blackman, Schaerr, and Seligman are constitutional law experts who previously filed amicus curiae briefs supporting or opposing the motion to dismiss. Schaerr and Blackman advocate for dismissing the case, while Seligman supports continuing the trial.

Legal Analysts React To Judge Cannon’s Decision

Cannon’s decision to allow non-parties to present oral arguments has been described as “absolutely stunning” by legal analyst Joyce Vance. She explained that such moves are rare in district courts and typically seen in the Supreme Court or higher courts.

Vance further stressed the unusual nature of the decision, comparing it to inviting random members of the public to weigh in on a legal matter. "These are non-parties, they do not have a stake in the outcome in this case," she clarified.

Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg also commented on social media, emphasizing how atypical Cannon's judgment was. He noted that, typically, non-parties are permitted to submit briefs but not to participate in oral arguments, particularly on claims concerning the special counsel's constitutionality.

Public Concerns on Government Spending Highlighted

In addition to the participation of Blackman, Schaerr, and Seligman, two individuals, Jessica Nan Berk and Hilda Tobias Kennedy, filed as amici supporting Trump’s motion to dismiss. They argue against the use of government funds in the litigation.

Berk and Kennedy, who identify as “disabled, pro se, indigent, private citizens, elderly,” claim to possess relevant expertise for the court. Their filing indicates significant concern over public fund allocation and emphasizes a need for resources to shift towards addressing issues affecting seniors, veterans, and disabled individuals.

They argue that the Department of Justice is failing to allocate the people's money effectively. “Funding is greatly needed for crimes against seniors and the disabled, veterans, the elderly, abused children/adults... the Department of Justice is grossly failing to use the people's money where it matters and should not be condoned for pursuing such a costly and dragged-out litigation that could be quickly resolved cheaply.”

Judge Cannon's Order Under Intense Scrutiny

Berk and Kennedy have also called on Congress to enact legislation to curb the removal of sensitive documents without proper authorization, believing it endangers public safety. "We would also like to urge Congress to make some commonsense legislation to stop this continued violation of removing sensitive documents without some kind of order, putting us all at risk," they wrote.

This latest decision by Judge Cannon has further fueled partisan criticism. Critics argue she is deliberately delaying the trial, reflected by the absence of a set start date.

The inclusion of non-parties in oral arguments adds a highly unusual layer to the proceedings, drawing stark contrasts to standard courtroom protocols wherein such participation is rare.

Legal experts and observers now wait to see the impact of these oral arguments on the outcome of the motion to dismiss. With the hearing set for June 21, much is at stake in this high-profile case.

As the legal community watches closely, both critics and supporters await the implications of such a judicial decision. The balance between legal procedural norms and Judge Cannon’s novel approaches could influence future cases.