Trump classified documents judge is target of more than 1,000 complaints, appeals court reveals

• Judge Aileen Cannon has been criticized for her handling of the criminal case in Florida federal court against former President Donald Trump, who appointed her to the bench.
• Trump is charged in the case with crimes related to retaining classified government documents after he left the White House, and with obstructing the recovery of those records.
• The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was found guilty Thursday in New York state court of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

The Florida federal judge overseeing the criminal classified documents case against former President Donald Trump has been the target of more than 1,000 complaints in just one week this month raising allegations of her handling of the case, a top appeals court judge revealed in an order.

The complaints against Judge Aileen Cannon have come to light amid renewed criticism by some legal observers and Trump opponents that she is slow-walking the criminal case against the former president to ensure it does not go to trial before the presidential election.

"Many of the complaints" against Cannon filed with the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals "request that the Chief Circuit Judge remove her from the classified-documents case and reassign the case to a different judge," Chief Judge William Pryor wrote in a May 22 order posted on the appeal court's website.

And "many of the complaints against Judge Cannon also question the correctness of her rulings or her delays in issuing rulings in the case," Pryor wrote.

Those complaints filed since May 16 "appear to be part of an orchestrated campaign," according to Pryor, whose appellate court reviews cases arising from federal district courts in Florida, Georgia and Alabama.

Public critics of Cannon have noted her delays in ruling on multiple pending motions, granting hearings to Trump's lawyers on legal issues that might otherwise be easily addressed through court filings, and criticizing filings by special counsel Jack Smith's prosecutors.

Trump, who appointed Cannon to the bench, is charged in the case with crimes related to withholding classified government records at his Mar-a-Lago club residence in Palm Beach, Florida, after he left the White House, and trying to hide them from officials who sought their recovery.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, who has pleaded not guilty in that case, on Thursday was convicted by a state court jury in New York of 34 felony counts related to a 2016 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Pryor, in his May 22 order about the complaints, wrote that he "has considered and dismissed four of those orchestrated complaints as merits-related and as based on allegations lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred."

He also wrote that neither he nor the appeals court's Judicial Council has the authority to remove Cannon from the case under the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings.

"Although many of the complaints allege an improper motive in delaying the case, the allegations are speculative and unsupported by any evidence," Pryor wrote.

"The Complaints also do not establish that Judge Cannon was required to recuse herself from the case because she was appointed by then-President Trump."

The chief judge also wrote that before May 16, "multiple Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability" were filed against Cannon, who sits in Fort Pierce, Florida, federal court, "raising allegations in connection" with Trump's criminal case.

"Some of those complaints have been acted upon, and others will be acted upon in due course," Pryor wrote, without revealing the nature of those actions.

Pryor said that he recommended that the Judicial Council order the appeals court's clerk not to accept complaints against Cannon received after May 16 "to the extent they are similar to previously filed complaints." The council followed that recommendation, according to the order.

Pryor also wrote, that while the judicial-complaint process "is not the appropriate way to seek review of Judge Cannon's orders, her orders are nevertheless subject to appellate review in normal course."

CNBC has requested comment from Cannon through the office of the chief judge of the U.S. Southern District Court of Florida.

Glenn Kirschner, a lawyer and former federal prosecutor, on his podcast Justice Matters earlier this week did an episode on Cannon titled "Judge Aileen Cannon Grinds Trump's Classified Documents/Obstruction/Espionage Case to a Halt."

The episode's description on Apple Podcasts says, "Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon should not be presiding over Trump's federal prosecution in Florida."

"She has brought the case to a screeching halt by declining to resolve motions in a timely manner and by refusing to even set a trial date. Judge Cannon is NOT an honest broker of the law, and the federal law requires a judge to be removed when his/her 'impartially might reasonably be questioned.' "

The episode links to a YouTube video featuring Kirschner explaining how to file a complaint against Cannon by mailing one to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"A lot of people took advantage of that step-by-step video, and they submitted those judicial complaint forms," Kirschner said on the podcast.

CNBC has requested comment from Kirschner on Pryor's order.

Pryor was on a three-judge panel of the appeals court that issued a scathing ruling in December 2022 overturning Cannon's appointment of an outside watchdog to determine whether documents seized from Mar-a-Lago by FBI agents could be used in the ongoing criminal probe of Trump.

"This appeal requires us to consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation," the panel wrote. "The answer is no."

"The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant," the panel written statement continued. "Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so."

"The district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction in this case."