A US judge has dismissed the criminal case accusing Donald Trump of illegally holding onto classified documents, dealing the former president another major legal victory as he seeks a return to the White House.
Florida-based US District Aileen Cannon, who was nominated by Mr Trump, ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, was unlawfully appointed to his role and did not have the authority to bring the case.
It marked another blockbuster legal victory for Mr Trump, following the 1 July US Supreme Court ruling that as a former president he enjoyed immunity from prosecution for many of his actions in office.
However, the US Justice Department plans to appeal the ruling.
Special Counsel Jack Smith will appeal the judge's dismissal of the criminal case against former president Donald Trump on charges of mishandling classified documents, the prosecutor's spokesman said.
"The Justice Department has authorized the special counsel to appeal the court's order," Peter Carr said in a statement.
Courts in other cases have repeatedly upheld the ability of the US Justice Department to appoint special counsels to handle certain politically sensitive investigations.
However, Judge Cannon's ruling throws the future of the case, which once posed serious legal peril for Mr Trump, into doubt.
Mr Smith is also prosecuting Mr Trump in federal court in Washington over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, but his lawyers have not made a similar challenge to the special counsel in that case.
In the documents case, Mr Trump was indicted on charges that he wilfully retained sensitive national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago social club after leaving office and obstructed government efforts to retrieve the material.
Two others, Mr Trump’s personal aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Olivera were also charged with obstructing the investigation.
Mr Trump’s lawyers challenged the legal authority for Attorney General Merrick Garland’s 2022 decision to appoint Mr Smith to lead investigations into Mr Trump.
They argued the appointment violated the US Constitution because his office was not created by Congress, and he was not confirmed by the Senate.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
Lawyers in Mr Smith’s office disputed Mr Trump’s claims, arguing there was a well-settled practice of using special counsels to manage politically sensitive investigations.
The ruling is the latest and most consequential in a series of decisions from Judge Cannon favouring Mr Trump’s defence and expressing scepticism about the conduct of prosecutors.
The judge previously delayed a trial indefinitely while considering a flurry of Mr Trump’s legal challenges.
In an unusual move, she allowed three outside lawyers, including two who sided with Mr Trump, to argue during a court hearing focused on Trump’s challenge to Smith’s appointment.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas also provided a boost to Mr Trump’s challenge to the special counsel.
In an opinion agreeing with the court’s decision to grant Mr Trump broad immunity in the election case, Justice Thomas questioned whether Mr Smith’s appointment was lawful using similar arguments to those made by Mr Trump’s lawyers.
Mr Garland appointed Mr Smith, a public corruption and international war crimes prosecutor, to give investigations into Mr Trump a degree of independence from the Justice Department under the Biden administration.
