Jack Smith urges court to revive Trump’s Mar-a-Lago case after ruling

Special counsel Jack Smith is urging a federal appeals court to reinstate the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. This request follows an unexpected ruling from a Trump-appointed judge who dismissed the charges, claiming that Smith’s office was unlawfully established.

In a recent filing with the Florida appeals court, Smith’s team referenced a host of established legal precedents and rulings from the Supreme Court that contradict the conclusions reached by District Judge Aileen Cannon. Smith’s team described the judge’s reasoning as “nonsensical.”

They also raised concerns that Cannon’s rationale could pose a risk to “hundreds” of similarly appointed offices within the federal government. Smith’s team argued, “The district court’s contrary view conflicts with an otherwise unbroken course of decisions, including by the Supreme Court, that the Attorney General has such authority. This is at odds with longstanding appointment practices in the Department of Justice and across the government. This Court should reverse.”

In her ruling last month, Cannon suggested that proceeding with the prosecution would violate two fundamental pillars of the U.S. constitutional framework—the role of Congress in appointing constitutional officers and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law.

Many legal experts and prosecutors found Cannon’s theory far-fetched, noting that it gained traction primarily through advocacy from right-wing legal groups. Notably, Trump’s legal team did not employ the same argument to seek a dismissal in the federal election interference case, even though Smith is handling that matter in a similar manner.

Smith’s team criticized Cannon’s decision for deviating from binding Supreme Court precedent, misinterpreting the statutes that enabled the appointment of the special counsel, and disregarding the established history of Attorney General appointments of special counsels.

Interestingly, prosecutors have refrained from requesting Cannon’s recusal from the case at this time.

The case against Trump includes 40 separate charges, revolving around allegations that he retained hundreds of classified documents after his presidency and then worked to obstruct government efforts to recover them.

Cannon’s 93-page order, which lacks any discussion of the evidence or specific facts of the case, resulted from her appointment to the bench by Trump in 2020.

In July, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised questions about the constitutional legitimacy of the special counsel’s office in an unrelated ruling concerning presidential “immunity.” His comments appeared to open a legal avenue for Trump and Cannon to challenge the Florida case.

Following Thomas’s opinion, Trump’s lawyers argued that it bolstered their claim regarding severe separation-of-powers issues related to Smith’s appointment and budget. Cannon’s ruling referenced Thomas’s opinion three times, underscoring its influence on her decision.

The Mar-a-Lago case is notable as it represents the first federal indictment of a former president, resulting from the recovery of over 13,000 documents—including around 300 marked classified—from Trump’s Florida estate in 2022. This action came after the National Archives and Records Administration spent more than a year attempting to retrieve the documents.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as an independent prosecutor in 2022, shortly after Trump declared his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election. The appointment aimed to shield the agency from accusations of political bias.

Despite the serious allegations against him, Trump and his supporters have repeatedly and unfoundedly accused President Joe Biden of orchestrating a conspiracy to undermine his Republican rival through politically motivated investigations to disrupt his bid for the White House.

Source: AP News