President Trump’s legal team filed multiple motions in February seeking to dismiss the case, arguing that Jack Smith does not have the authority to prosecute. However, the judge overseeing the case granted a motion for an amicus brief on Wednesday, urging the court to reject Trump’s request for dismissal.
In the amicus curiae brief, a group of former prosecutors, government officials, and constitutional lawyers argued that Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and improperly funded. They contended that Smith’s appointment was lawful under the U.S. Constitution and laws enacted by Congress.
President Trump’s attorneys claimed that Smith lacks the authority to prosecute the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and that the special counsel’s office is being funded “off the books” by the Biden administration. They argued that Smith’s appointment was invalid as it was not officially established by the U.S. Constitution or Congress.
After Trump’s motions to dismiss, the court granted three amicus curiae briefs supporting his motion. However, in a brief filed on Wednesday, it was argued that Trump’s motion to dismiss was without merit and that the supporting amici briefs were inconsistent.
One of the amici briefs, filed by a law professor, claimed that Smith’s temporary position as a special counsel was unlawful. Smith described himself as an “inferior officer of the United States.”
The Appointments Clause stipulates that all federal offices, except for the president’s, must be established by Congress and appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Trump’s motion to dismiss argued that there is no statute establishing the Office of Special Counsel.
The court has given President Trump’s lawyers and the special counsel until April 17 to respond to the amicus brief. Mr. Garland appointed Mr. Smith as special counsel in November 2022 to prosecute federal crimes related to Trump’s handling of classified documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate. Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
