Judge Aileen Cannon stands accused of engaging in blatant judicial favoritism towards Donald Trump, allegedly in exchange for future career advancement to the Supreme Court, a prominent law scholar has charged.
Richard W. Painter, a respected legal expert and former presidential advisor, has lambasted Cannon for what he describes as a series of advantageous rulings in Trump’s classified documents case. Painter asserts that Cannon’s actions, including multiple hearings and delays at the behest of Trump’s legal team, are a calculated attempt to curry favor with the former and potentially future president.
“Judge Cannon sure looks like she’s auditioning for the next open seat on the Supreme Court if Trump wins the election,” he wrote on X.
“As [legal experts] Norm Eisen, Fred Wertheimer and I have pointed out before, she shouldn’t be trying this case.”
Cannon, a relatively inexperienced judge appointed by Trump to the federal court in Florida, has rebuffed calls from senior colleagues to recuse herself from the case. Critics argue that her decisions, such as prolonged hearings and delaying trial proceedings, are unjustifiably biased in Trump’s favor.
“Judge Cannon held more time-wasting hearings today in Trump’s classified documents case & will continue to do so tomorrow,” he wrote. “The fact that this case isn’t at jury selection is inexcusable.”
The case against Trump in Florida centers on allegations related to the mishandling of classified materials at his Mar-a-Lago estate post-presidency. Despite facing serious charges, Trump has maintained his innocence.
Cannon’s decisions to entertain arguments about the legitimacy of prosecutor appointments and the legality of FBI information gathering have further stalled proceedings, leaving the case indefinitely postponed.
Critics continue to scrutinize Cannon’s judicial impartiality, questioning whether her actions are politically motivated or genuinely reflective of fair legal oversight.
