Massive Blow for Trump as Latest Court Ruling Goes Against Him
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has delivered a mixed ruling that dealt a blow to former President Donald Trump’s legal strategy. On Thursday, June 27, MSNBC host Katie Phang took to X and reported that Judge Cannon denied Trump’s motion for a Franks hearing but ordered an evidentiary suppression hearing to address other concerns.
The Franks hearing, named after the 1978 Supreme Court case Franks v. Delaware, is a legal proceeding to challenge the validity of a search warrant based on allegations that law enforcement officials made false statements or omitted material information in the warrant affidavit. Trump’s legal team had argued that the affidavit supporting the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago contained significant falsehoods and omissions.
Judge Cannon, however, found that Trump had “not made the requisite showing that the search warrant affidavit contains any material false statements or omissions.” This decision means that Trump will not have the opportunity to contest the affidavit’s validity through a Franks hearing. Despite this setback for Trump’s defense, Judge Cannon’s ruling did not entirely dismiss their claims.
She stated that the balance of Trump’s “Motion for Relief Relating to the Mar-a-Lago Raid and Unlawful Piercing of Attorney-Client Privilege” could not be resolved based “on the current record.” Consequently, she ordered an evidentiary suppression hearing, which a separate order will schedule.
This upcoming hearing will allow Trump’s legal team to present evidence and argue for the suppression of materials obtained during the FBI’s search. The Mar-a-Lago case revolves around the seizure of classified documents from Trump’s Florida estate.
The former president has consistently claimed that the search was politically motivated and an overreach by the Department of Justice. His attorneys have also argued that some of the materials seized are protected by attorney-client privilege. The denial of the Franks hearing represents a bold blow to Trump’s defense, as it eliminates one potential avenue for challenging the search warrant’s legitimacy.
However, the decision to move forward with an evidentiary suppression hearing indicates that the case is far from over and that there remain significant legal questions to be addressed. The outcome of the suppression hearing could have critical implications for the admissibility of the evidence seized during the Mar-a-Lago search.
