A Florida federal judge denied a bid by former President Donald Trump to dismiss his classified documents case on the grounds that his actions were permitted under the Presidential Records Act.

Trump’s attorneys had moved to dismiss the case on those grounds, writing in a February filing that the PRA granted “unreviewable discretion on President Trump to designate the records at issue as personal.” While U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon did not grant Trump’s motion to dismiss 32 counts pertaining to unlawful retention of classified records, she also called special counsel Jack Smith‘s demand that she reveal her legal logic on the matter quickly “unjust.”

Cannon wrote that the charges “make no reference to the Presidential Records Act, nor do they rely on that statute for purposes of stating an offense.” As for the remaining counts against Trump tacked on during a superseding indictment, “they too track the applicable statutory language and essential elements of the charged crimes,” the judge wrote.

The decision comes just two days after both parties submitted their responses to Cannon’s proposed jury instructions based on competing interpretations of two laws relevant in the case.

The first scenario asked them to consider “whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt” that any records Trump was found to have kept at home were “personal or presidential.” The second told parties to respond to a premise that juries and courts lack the expertise to review or determine whether a president has “sole authority” under the PRA to categorize records as personal. Smith has raised significant concerns with the premises, which legal experts contend would strongly favor Trump’s defense if they became finalized as part of the eventual jury instructions.

Smith had asked Cannon to act sooner rather than later on finalizing the jury instructions to make time for a potential writ of mandamus, or review of her determination well before any trial begins. A current date has not been established, though Smith has expressed a desire to beginthe trial by July.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Cannon wrote that to the extent that Smith demands “anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.