Aileen Cannon's Colleagues Not 'Staying in Their Lane': Legal Analyst

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon continues to find herself at the core of heated debate among legal experts, as Jonathan Turley, prominent legal analyst, defended the judge while taking aim at Cannon's peers, saying that if a recent report is true, her colleagues are not "staying in their lane."

In a scathing opinion piece published in the New York Post, Turley, professor at George Washington University Law School, raised concerns about not only the conduct of Cannon's peers but also the media's treatment of the judge. He criticized what he describes as a "feeding frenzy" of attacks against Cannon—who's presiding over former President Donald Trump's classified documents case in Florida—from politicians, the press and pundits.

He particularly took issue with a recent report by The New York Times suggesting that two of Cannon's judicial colleagues attempted to persuade her to recuse herself from the case when it was randomly assigned to her.

"The suggestion is that two of her colleagues breached any sense of collegiality and confidentiality to contribute to a hit piece on Cannon," Turley wrote, arguing that these actions, if true, represent Cannon's peers not "staying in their lane."

The controversy surrounding Cannon has intensified following her decision to hear arguments challenging the constitutionality of Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment. This move has drawn sharp criticism from other legal experts, including MSNBC legal analyst and NYU law professor Melissa Murray, who publicly scolded Cannon on air Friday.

"Girl, stay in your lane. Stay. In. Your. Lane," Murray said, arguing that the issue of the special counsel's appointment has already been settled in other courts. "If this were an actual issue, it would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, not by a district court judge in Fort Pierce, Florida."

Turley, however, defends Cannon's right to hear these arguments. "Cannon is precisely in her lane in hearing a claim without controlling authority," he wrote. "The fact is that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue and many lawyers have objected to the summary treatment given the claim by other courts."

The legal analyst points out what he sees as a double standard in the media's treatment of judges in high-profile political cases. He notes that just weeks ago, many of the same outlets now criticizing Cannon were defending New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan from criticism in Trump's hush money case in which the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

Newsweek has contacted the Department of Justice and Trump's office on Monday for comment via email.

Turley argues that the attacks on Cannon often focus on her appointment by Trump, despite the fact that many Trump appointees have ruled against the former president on various issues. He contrasts Cannon's random assignment to the case with Merchan's selection, adding that Merchan is "a political donor to President [Joe] Biden and has a daughter who is a major Democratic operative."

He also highlights Cannon's background as a Cuban-American immigrant, suggesting that her personal history makes her resilient to media criticism. "When your family escapes Communist Cuba and then the drug-ravaged city of Cali, partisan media hit pieces are hardly intimidating."

Turley concludes by claiming that Cannon is fulfilling her role as outlined in Article III of the Constitution. "She will rule and she will not yield," he wrote, claiming that the "scorched-earth campaign" against her is unlikely to succeed.