Another blow for Trump as federal judge Aileen Cannon rejects his effort to throw out classified documents case over his claims he had a right to take the files

A federal judge on Thursday refused to throw out the classified documents case against Donald Trump, rejecting his argument that former presidents were allowed to keep files after leaving the White House.

It is the latest legal blow to Trump who is due to appear in court in 11 days time for the start of a business fraud trial in New York.

His lawyers have repeatedly sought to delay the four cases against him or have the prosecutions dismissed entirely.

In the Florida documents case, they used the 1978 Presidential Records Act to argue that their client had the power to designate files as personal and take them with him when he left office. 

Trump is charged with wilfully retaining documents of national security importance and failing to hand them over. He denies all the charges.

In a three-page order, Judge Aileen Cannon sided with prosecutors, saying the indictment made 'no reference to the Presidential Records Act, nor do they rely on that statute for purposes of stating an offense.'

It is the latest legal loss for Trump.

Earlier in the day the judge overseeing the Georgia election interference case rejected his argument that prosecutors were trying to criminalise speech protected by First Amendment rights. 

In his ruling, Judge Scott McAfee cites allowable restrictions on speech and association during instances such as alleged criminal activity.

'Like political speech, the right of association is not immune from restriction — particularly where the "state indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process" — and thus laws "burden[ing] the associational rights of political parties and their members" may be valid,' he wrote.

And on Wednesday, Trump lost a request to delay his business fraud trial until the Supreme Court rules on whether or not former presidents have immunity.

Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan said the motion had come too late, ruling that Trump's lawyers had plenty of time to have lodged the request before a deadline expired.

Instead, he said the March 7 filing 'raises real questions about the sincerity and actual purpose of the motion.'