In July, a federal judge declared that the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel was unconstitutional. Smith has now appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, seeking to overturn Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the Justice Department’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump over classified documents.
Smith argued in a brief filed on Aug. 26 that the Attorney General had validly appointed him as special counsel and that he was properly funded. He contended that the district court had misconstrued the statutes authorizing his appointment and deviated from Supreme Court precedent.
Judge Cannon’s ruling in July stated that Smith’s appointment violated the U.S. Constitution, specifically the appointments and appropriations clauses. She emphasized that Smith’s prosecution of the former president undermined key aspects of the constitutional framework, including Congress’s role in appointing constitutional officers and authorizing expenditures by law.
This ruling raised concerns about the Justice Department’s use of special counsels, especially in light of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas casting doubt on Smith’s appointment in a separate case. Cannon determined that Smith was an inferior officer and that Congress needed to authorize the attorney general to appoint him as special counsel. She pointed out that the Independent Counsel Act, which once allowed the Justice Department to appoint special prosecutors, had expired in 1999.
Smith’s brief disputed Cannon’s ruling on statutory grounds and challenged her interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Nixon. He argued that the court’s reasoning in that case supported the legitimacy of special prosecutors and their unique authority.
Despite Cannon’s attempt to limit her decision to Trump’s case, Smith warned that it could have broader implications for the validity of special counsel appointments throughout history. He contended that the district court’s reasoning could call into question the legitimacy of past appointments and undermine the authority of the Attorney General and Congress in such matters. Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
