The constitutionality of the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith will be tested next week in a hearing before U.S. District Judge Eileen Cannon.
Cannon already postponed former President Donald Trump’s classified documents trial indefinitely in May. listen On June 21, arguments were held on whether the entire case should be dismissed due to Smith’s “illegal” appointment. Trump’s legal team argues that Smith, a private citizen who has not been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate at the time of the November 2022 inauguration, has been treated unfairly. schedule The law, which Attorney General Merrick Garland appointees, doesn’t even have the authority to bring charges.
Trump face He faces 41 felony charges in the Florida case. He was first indicted last June on charges related to handling classified documents.
“The Appointments Clause does not permit the Attorney General to appoint private citizens or like-minded political allies to exercise the prosecutorial powers of the United States without Senate confirmation,” Trump’s lawyers argued in a February filing. motion“Accordingly, Jack Smith does not have the authority to prosecute this case.”
Smith Assert History supports his appointment, with the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Nixon in 1974 that “the Attorney General has the legal authority to appoint a special prosecutor.”
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed precisely that conclusion when it ruled that the Acting Attorney General had the legal authority to appoint Special Counsel Mueller,” he wrote.
Trump’s lawyers say Smith is wrong, and that the Supreme Court’s Nixon decision called a “special counsel” a “subordinate official,” and that Smith’s current authority exceeds that.
“Attorney General Garland has declared that Smith’s appointment was to promote independence, and the special counsel’s office claims that ‘coordination with the Biden Administration’ is ‘non-existent,'” they wrote. “If Smith is a low-level official, Nixon If so, these public allegations are false because Mr. Smith is serving at the pleasure of the Attorney General and President Biden, who is exercising his Article II authority to oversee the prosecution of a political opponent and potential candidate in the 2024 presidential election.”
Trump’s arguments against Smith’s appointment have strong supporters, including former Reagan Administration Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who previously joined an amicus brief filed on the issue in Trump’s election interference lawsuit in Washington, D.C. circuit And Supreme court. (Related: Judge in Trump documents case postpones trial date indefinitely)
Justice Clarence Thomas said, question Smith’s appointment was mentioned during oral arguments in Trump’s presidential immunity appeal at the Supreme Court in April, but was not directly argued by Trump’s lawyers in the case.
Next week will be the first serious consideration of the potential legal issues surrounding Smith’s appointment.
At oral argument, Cannon will allow three third parties to participate. The first lawyer is Jean. Chaelfiled an amicus curiae simple Former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and Michael B. Mukasey, represented by law professors Steven Calavesi and Gary Lawson.
The former attorneys general and law professors argue that flaws in Smith’s appointment “stab at the heart of the legitimacy of the process.” While Smith argues that attorneys general have a long history of appointing special counsels, their brief notes that “almost all special counsels appointed in the past four decades, with the exception of Smith and Robert Mueller, were already serving as Senate-confirmed United States Attorneys and therefore lawfully appointed pursuant to that provision.”
WASHINGTON, DC – AUGUST 1: Special Counsel Jack Smith speaks about the recently unsealed indictment containing four felony counts against former U.S. President Donald Trump at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC on August 1, 2023. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law in Houston is also scheduled to argue at the hearing. simple he Delegate Professor Seth Barrett Tillman and the Landmark Legal Foundation support President Trump’s motion.
They argue in the brief that Smith’s temporary role makes him at best an “employee” of the United States, not an “officer of the United States.” Even if he is legally permitted to remain in his position, he can only do so “under the regular supervision of the politically responsible United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.”
Meanwhile, Cannon gave time to the legal scholar Matthew. Seligman Develop an argument on behalf of the former Prosecutorelected officials and constitutional lawyers believe it is “plainly false” to claim that Smith’s appointment was unlawful.
“The Constitution’s Appointments Clause gives Congress the power to appoint lower-level officials, including special counsels, to the Attorney General as head of the Department of Justice,” their amicus brief states. state.
Another federal lawsuit filed in Washington, DC by Jack Smith alleging that President Trump sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election has also been put on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision on President Trump’s immunity appeal.
In Georgia, the organized crime case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis against Trump and co-defendants has been stayed pending an appeals court decision on Willis’s possible disbarment. The defendants allege that Willis appointed her romantic partner, Nathan Wade, as special prosecutor and took financial advantage of him, including taking her on vacations with money he earned as a prosecutor.
A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records in a case brought by Democratic District Attorney Alvin Bragg. (RELATED: Exclusive: FEC Commissioner slams Biden DOJ’s ‘dangerous’ decision not to intervene in Bragg’s prosecution of Trump)
The questions surrounding Smith’s nomination have implications that extend beyond him and Trump. I have written A December Reason magazine column argued that Smith’s nationwide jurisdiction is “stronger” than that of any of the 93 Senate-confirmed federal prosecutors.
“If Donald Trump is re-elected in 2024, we don’t want any future U.S. attorney general he may appoint to be able to pick and empower any thug lawyer on any street corner in the same way that Attorney General Merrick Garland empowered private citizen Jack Smith,” Calabresi wrote. “Consider how that played out during the McCarthy era, or in the Grant, Harding, Truman and Nixon administrations, when attorneys general were corrupt.”
As an independent, nonpartisan news service, all content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation is available free of charge to any legitimate news publisher with a large readership. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and affiliation with the DCNF. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
