Judge who dismissed Trump case says prosecutor should have taken her more seriously

• Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday dismissed former President Donald Trump's classified-documents case.
• She wrote that the special counsel failed to brief her on remedies beyond dismissal.
• "Startlingly, the Special Counsel submitted nothing" during a "lengthy hearing," Cannon wrote.

Judge Aileen Cannon didn't just throw out the criminal charges stemming from allegations that former President Donald Trump mishandled classified documents — but also suggested the special counsel Jack Smith didn't take her seriously enough.

In her shocking 93-page ruling on Monday, Cannon concluded that Smith's appointment as a special prosecutor in the case was unconstitutional.

The legality of special counsels has been debated for years, and Cannon wrote Monday that Congress needed to bestow such legal powers.

Cannon also wrote that the special counsel had a "full and fair opportunity" to brief her on remedies besides dismissing the case.

"Yet startlingly, the Special Counsel submitted nothing on the topic of the proper remedy for the Appointments Clause issue, despite challenging dismissal as a remedy," Cannon wrote.

Cannon added that Smith's team instead asked for "some additional briefing" on the issue but that it was too late.

"This last-minute reference to conditional supplemental briefing at the hearing — only if the Court disagreed with the Special Counsel on the merits — in no way signals a lack of a full and fair opportunity given to all parties to brief their positions," Cannon said.

Before issuing the decision, Cannon took the step of allowing amicus briefs — arguments from third parties unrelated to the case — over the legality of special counsels, something that's rarely done in criminal cases on a district-court level. Several right-leaning groups, along with two former US attorneys general who served in Republican presidential administrations, argued against special-counsel appointments.

Some legal groups and Trump allies urged the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality of special counsels when it heard arguments earlier this year related to presidential immunity. The court ultimately didn't take up the issue. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said he believed most special counsels were unconstitutional, but none of the other eight justices joined his opinion.

In response to Cannon's decision, a spokesman for the special counsel's office, Peter Carr, said in a statement that the Justice Department had authorized an appeal.

"The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel," Carr said.