Former President Donald Trump's trial concerning classified documents has been indefinitely postponed by Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida, leading to growing calls for her recusal from the case. Trump is currently facing 40 federal charges related to allegations of improperly retaining classified documents after leaving the White House in January 2021 and obstructing efforts to return them to the relevant authorities. He has pleaded not guilty and claims that the charges, along with those in three other criminal trials, are politically motivated.

In an order issued on Tuesday, Judge Cannon cited the need to address issues surrounding classified evidence as the reason for the trial's delay. The original trial start date of May 20 has been put on hold, with no new date set. Cannon explained that setting a trial date at this stage would be imprudent, as there are "eight substantive pretrial motions" that would require until at least late July to be resolved.

This decision came after Judge Cannon granted Trump a delay in the trial on Monday by temporarily staying a deadline for court filings. As a result, it remains uncertain whether the trial will commence before the upcoming November 2024 presidential election.

Judge Cannon's handling of the case, including the recent delay on Tuesday, has generated calls for her recusal. Multiple petitions circulating online, with hundreds of thousands of signatures, are demanding that she step down. Commentators have also joined in expressing their concerns. Critics argue that Cannon's actions demonstrate a bias in favor of Trump and his supporters.

One particular point of contention revolves around proposed jury instructions that Judge Cannon requested lawyers to file back in March. These instructions outlined two different legal scenarios, one in which the jury would decide whether Trump had the authorization to retain the classified documents and another assuming he had the authority due to the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Legal analysts and many others criticized this order and called for the judge's removal from the case.

In response to the proposed instructions, Jack Smith, representing Trump, criticized their legal premise as flawed and stated that many of the indictments in the case were not based on the PRA but on the Espionage Act of 1917. Smith also mentioned the possibility of requesting a writ of mandamus, which would require the 11th Circuit of Appeals to review Judge Cannon's legal rulings and actions. However, Professor Todd Landman cautioned that this would lead to further delays and that the high bar for removal would need to be met.

Richard Painter, a former White House Ethics Lawyer, has previously called for Judge Cannon's recusal, citing concerns about her impartiality. He believes the government should file a motion for her to step down and for another judge to take over the case.

The potential success of efforts to remove Judge Cannon from the case remains disputed. Former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb does not believe that there is legal recourse to have her removed or overruled on the current scheduling issue. Similarly, law professor Bennett Gershman argues that Judge Cannon's conduct, despite its oddities and delays, does not clearly indicate bias against the government or an appearance of bias.

Meanwhile, Trump is simultaneously facing trial in Manhattan for a separate case involving allegations of falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, a former pornographic actress, before the 2016 presidential election. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and denies Daniels' claim of an affair in 2006.