ORDER denying without prejudice [325] Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-32 Based on Unconstitutional Vagueness. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 3/14/2024. See attached document for full details. (jf01)
Page 1 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024 Page 1 of
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 23-80101-CR-CANNON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
Plaintiff,
DONALD J. TRUMP,
WALTINE NAUTA, and
CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT TRUMP’S MOTION
TO DISMISS COUNTS 1–32 BASED ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Trump’s Motion to Dismiss
Counts 1 through 32 Based on Unconstitutional Vagueness (the “Motion”), filed on February 22,
2024 [ECF No. 325]. The Special Counsel filed a Response in Opposition [ECF No. 377], to
which Defendant Trump filed a Reply [ECF No. 398]. The Court heard argument on the Motion
on March 14, 2024 [ECF No. 401]. Upon careful review of the Motion, related filings, and the
arguments raised during the hearing, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Defendant Trump seeks dismissal of Counts 1 through 32 of the Superseding Indictment
on the ground that the statutory phrases “unauthorized possession,” “relating to the national
defense,” and “entitled to receive” appearing in 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) are unconstitutionally vague
as applied under the facts presented, in violation of due process and the rule of lenity. Although
the Motion raises various arguments warranting serious consideration, the Court ultimately
determines, following lengthy oral argument, that resolution of the overall question presented
depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still-fluctuating definitions ofPage 2 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024 Page 2 of CASE NO. 23-80101-CR-CANNON
statutory terms/phrases as charged, along with at least some disputed factual issues as raised in the
Motion. For that reason, rather than prematurely decide now whether application of 18 U.S.C.
§ 793(e) in these circumstances yields unsalvageable vagueness despite the asserted judicial
glosses, the Court elects to deny the Motion without prejudice, to be raised as appropriate in
connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Trump’s Motion
to Dismiss Counts 1 through 32 Based on Unconstitutional Vagueness [ECF No. 325] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 14th day of March
2024.
_________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:
counsel of record
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 23-80101-CR-CANNON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
Plaintiff,
DONALD J. TRUMP,
WALTINE NAUTA, and
CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT TRUMP’S MOTION
TO DISMISS COUNTS 1–32 BASED ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Trump’s Motion to Dismiss
Counts 1 through 32 Based on Unconstitutional Vagueness (the “Motion”), filed on February 22,
2024 [ECF No. 325]. The Special Counsel filed a Response in Opposition [ECF No. 377], to
which Defendant Trump filed a Reply [ECF No. 398]. The Court heard argument on the Motion
on March 14, 2024 [ECF No. 401]. Upon careful review of the Motion, related filings, and the
arguments raised during the hearing, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Defendant Trump seeks dismissal of Counts 1 through 32 of the Superseding Indictment
on the ground that the statutory phrases “unauthorized possession,” “relating to the national
defense,” and “entitled to receive” appearing in 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) are unconstitutionally vague
as applied under the facts presented, in violation of due process and the rule of lenity. Although
the Motion raises various arguments warranting serious consideration, the Court ultimately
determines, following lengthy oral argument, that resolution of the overall question presented
depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still-fluctuating definitions of
PDF Page 3
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2024 Page 2 of 2
CASE NO. 23-80101-CR-CANNON
statutory terms/phrases as charged, along with at least some disputed factual issues as raised in the
Motion. For that reason, rather than prematurely decide now whether application of 18 U.S.C.
§ 793(e) in these circumstances yields unsalvageable vagueness despite the asserted judicial
glosses, the Court elects to deny the Motion without prejudice, to be raised as appropriate in
connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Trump’s Motion
to Dismiss Counts 1 through 32 Based on Unconstitutional Vagueness [ECF No. 325] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 14th day of March
2024.
_________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:
counsel of record
2
Back to 
