Judge’s Dismissal Of Classified Document Case Against Trump Explained

Authored by Sam Dorman via the Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Justice Department’s classified documents case against former President Donald Trump on July 15, ruling that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment violated two key provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

In a 93-page ruling, Judge Cannon wrote that Mr. Smith’s prosecution of the former president “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.”

The ruling raises questions about the Justice Department’s use of special counsels.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr. Smith, said the Justice Department had authorized an appeal.

“The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a special counsel,” Mr. Carr said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times.

Here are some key takeaways on the ruling and its implications.

Special Counsels and the Appointments Clause

Judge Cannon ruled that Mr. Smith’s position was unconstitutional under the appointments clause of the Constitution, which states that Congress can, through law, allow department heads to appoint “inferior” officers.

The judge ruled that Mr. Smith was an inferior officer, which requires Congress to authorize the attorney general to appoint him as special counsel, which didn’t happen.

Her ruling pointed to how Congress let the Independent Counsel Act, which allowed the Justice Department to appoint special prosecutors, expire in 1999. While Mr. Smith pointed to other laws to justify his appointment, Judge Cannon rejected those arguments.

Judge Cannon’s ruling conflicts with a 2019 judgment by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld former special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment.

The Florida judge also declared his funding illegitimate in her opinion.

“Special Counsel Smith’s office—since November 2022—has been drawing funds from the Treasury without statutory authorization, in violation of the Appropriations Clause,” she wrote.

The appropriations clause reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

Judge Cannon said the court “has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation, but the answers are not entirely self-evident, and the caselaw is not well developed,” she said.

The ruling is limited to the prosecution of former President Trump in the Southern District of Florida but could be cited in other cases.

Appeal to 11th Circuit

Mr. Smith is expected to appeal Judge Cannon’s decision to dismiss the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The 11th Circuit will likely hear the case with a three-judge panel, which could either affirm or reject Judge Cannon’s ruling.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if her order is overturned by the Eleventh Circuit or the Supreme Court,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told The Epoch Times in an email. “Justice [Clarence] Thomas is the only justice who seems persuaded by this type of argument.”

Mr. Rahmani was referring to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in Trump v. United States, which held that the former president enjoyed some immunity from criminal prosecution. That concurrence focused on the legality of special counsels and was quoted by Judge Cannon in her July 15 decision.

By contrast, John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told The Epoch Times that Judge Cannon’s opinion was “well-reasoned and well-written.”

If the 11th Circuit rejects Judge Cannon’s ruling, it will presumably send the case back to the district court level to continue pretrial proceedings.

Replacement Prosecutor?

While Mr. Smith pursues an appeal, Attorney General Merrick Garland could assign a U.S. attorney to bring charges against the former president in Florida. Doing so would require that attorney to once again obtain an indictment from a grand jury.

The U.S. attorney for that district is Markenzy Lapointe.

Mr. Shu said appointing Mr. Lapointe would be problematic from a public relations perspective for the Justice Department, given that Mr. Garland had justified his appointment of Mr. Smith on the grounds of maintaining “both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters.”

With the appeals process afoot, even if the decision is overturned by a higher court, it is now extremely unlikely that a trial will occur before the November election.

Mr. Shu, who is also a former clerk for the 11th Circuit, said that “if Smith appeals, there’s no way the 11th Circuit can hear this case before the election; it’s not logistically possible.”

Supreme Court Appeal

Mr. Smith could also request that the Supreme Court skip the appellate level and take on Judge Cannon’s dismissal in an expedited fashion. It seems unlikely, however, that the top court would grant that request, given that it refused to do the same for former President Trump’s immunity appeal in his federal election case.

In the event that the 11th Circuit overturns Judge Cannon’s ruling, it is likely that former President Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court.

If the high court takes up an appeal, it would mark the third time that it has taken up a major constitutional question surrounding former President Trump in the 2024 election cycle.

Judge Cannon’s decision added to a year of major court rulings on the nation’s separation of powers.

The 6–3 Supreme Court decision in the Trump v. United States presidential immunity case ordered reconsideration of the issue by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. That case involves former President Trump’s reaction to the 2020 election, as well as his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, 2021.

“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,” Justice Thomas wrote in the majority opinion, referring to the prosecution in Washington. “The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”

Read the rest here…