A Florida judge has dismissed the US Justice Department’s classified documents case against Donald Trump, marking a significant victory for the former president just days after an assassination attempt on him.

Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump’s motion to dismiss the federal case, citing that the Justice Department’s appointment of special prosecutor Jack Smith violates the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution. Trump had pleaded not guilty to charges, including willful retention of national defense information.

A spokesman for Smith stated that the Justice Department plans to appeal the decision.

Dozens of classified files were found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, including in a shower and storage room, after he left the White House in 2021.

“The Court is convinced that Special Counsel Smith’s prosecution of this action breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme—the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law,” Judge Cannon wrote in her 93-page order.

Trump faced multiple felony counts over his alleged mishandling of classified documents. The 37-count indictment accused Trump of retaining files at his Florida estate and lying to investigators. It also alleged he attempted to obstruct the investigation.

Trump was charged alongside aide Walt Nauta and former employee Carlos de Oliveira, both of whom also pleaded not guilty.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith in 2022 to oversee two federal investigations into Trump.

Judge Cannon clarified that her decision applies only to this case and not a second one overseen by Smith regarding alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump’s lawyers did not seek to dismiss that case.

Recently, the Trump-appointed judge indefinitely postponed the federal classified documents trial, citing significant questions over trial evidence.

Legal experts have debated the strengths and weaknesses of the two federal criminal cases brought by Smith. On Monday, Judge Cannon asserted that the specifics did not matter, holding that the existence of special counsels—how they are appointed and funded—violates the US Constitution.

Judge Cannon’s ruling contrasts with decisions by other US courts regarding specially appointed prosecutors. It aligns with theories advanced by some conservative legal scholars and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a recent presidential immunity case.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents, including Trump, are immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts.” Judge Cannon referenced Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in her decision, questioning the legal basis for naming special counsel.

The indictment included images of files allegedly stored in a shower at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property.