The federal judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case has dismissed it.

Charges filed last year by special counsel Jack Smith alleged that Trump mishandled classified documents, retained documents he was not entitled to have, and obstructed justice. But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this month that said presidents have 100 percent immunity for official acts that do not violate the Constitution.

But, in a 93-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon approved Trump’s request to dismiss the indictment because Smith was appointed and funded illegally.

“Former President Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith is GRANTED in accordance with this Order,” U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon wrote in the Monday ruling. “The Superseding Indictment is DISMISSED because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.”

Trump, following the ruling, told Fox News’ Bret Baier – the anchor and executive editor of ‘Special Report with Bret Baier’ – that he was “thrilled that a judge had the courage and wisdom to do this. This has big, big implications, not just for this case but for other cases.

“The special counsel worked with everyone to try to take me down,” Trump added from Milwaukee, the site of this week’s Republican National Convention. “This is a big, big deal. It only makes this convention more positive. This will be an amazing week.”

The appointments clause notes: “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States be appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, although Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

However, Smith was never confirmed by the Senate.

“Upon careful study of the foundational challenges raised in the Motion, the Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s 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,” Cannon wrote.

“The Framers gave Congress a pivotal role in the appointment of principal and inferior officers.  That role cannot be usurped by the Executive Branch or diffused elsewhere – whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not,” she added.

Smith’s other case against Trump related ‘election interference’ stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol Building, now also appears to be in danger of collapse.

“In the case of inferior officers, that means that Congress is empowered to decide if it wishes to vest appointment power in a Head of Department, and indeed, Congress has proven itself quite capable of doing so in many other statutory contexts.  But it plainly did not do so here, despite the Special Counsel’s strained statutory readings,” Cannon added.

“In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny,” she also said.