Special Counsel Asks Appeals Court to Reinstate Trump’s Documents Case

Special Counsel Jack Smith has moved to reinstate the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, asserting that a lower court’s decision to dismiss the charges strayed from legal norms and failed to properly consider historical context. Smith submitted an initial brief to the federal appeals court in Atlanta, defending both his lawful appointment and the validity of the indictment against Trump and his associates.

The case, which includes aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira, was dismissed in July by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. She concluded that Smith’s appointment as special counsel breached the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

Trump has until September 26 to respond to Smith’s filing, which strongly contests the lower court’s ruling.

Smith and his legal team argue that historical precedent supports the attorney general’s power to appoint special counsels for law enforcement purposes. They highlighted prior appointments made under similar conditions by past attorneys general, stating that these practices were endorsed by Congress through various forms of legislation.

According to Smith’s team, “The attorney general validly appointed the special counsel, who is also properly funded.” They contend that Cannon’s ruling diverged from established Supreme Court precedents, misinterpreted the relevant statutes, and disregarded the longstanding tradition of appointing special counsels.

Prosecutors emphasized that Cannon’s contrary stance contradicted an unbroken line of decisions affirming the attorney general’s appointment authority and clashed with established Justice Department practices. They further urged that her ruling lacks substantial merit, underscoring Congress’s historical role in authorizing such appointments.

In their argument, they cited the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon from 1974, which reinforced the authority of the attorney general to appoint special prosecutors—and established the importance of complying with subpoenas issued by such officials. “Nixon decisively invalidates the defendants’ challenge to the special counsel’s appointment,” Smith asserted in his filing.

Smith charged Trump with 40 counts related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving office in January 2021. The investigation revealed that about 300 sensitive records were found at Mar-a-Lago, including over 100 documents exposed during an FBI search in August 2022. Some of these documents lead to charges of unlawful retention of national defense information.

In addition to these charges, Trump, Nauta, and de Oliveira stand accused of obstructing the Justice Department’s investigation. All three have pleaded not guilty.

Trump’s defense has sought to have the charges dismissed on multiple grounds, contesting Smith’s appointment and the constitutional validity of his office’s funding. Cannon heard arguments on these issues in June and permitted outside attorneys to join in the proceedings, which is considered an atypical approach.

The judge, appointed by Trump, ultimately sided with the former president and closed the case in mid-July, asserting that the Appointments Clause is a vital constitutional limitation that grants Congress a significant role in appointment matters. Cannon stated in her lengthy ruling that the special counsel’s role infringes upon this legislative authority, potentially jeopardizing the structural liberties inherent in the separation of powers.

Smith wasted no time in appealing Cannon’s decision to the 11th Circuit, and the ongoing debate over the constitutionality of his appointment is likely to reach the Supreme Court.

In the filing, prosecutors defended Smith’s appointment with historical and legal validations, asserting that the funding for these offices further affirms the attorney general’s appointment power. They warned that Cannon’s ruling could have widespread ramifications; if allowed to remain, it would call into question the legitimacy of numerous past appointments across the Justice Department and the broader executive branch.

Cannon’s ruling arrived soon after Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurrent opinion in a different case involving Trump, raising concerns over the legitimacy of Smith’s office. This came as Trump’s advocacy for presidential immunity complicated hearings surrounding his actions post-2020 election.

Smith was appointed as special counsel in 2022 to oversee investigations into Trump’s handling of sensitive documents and his alleged attempts to undermine the transfer of power after the 2020 election, a practice that has seen both Republican and Democratic attorneys general appoint special counsels in sensitive matters. Various federal judges have previously dismissed constitutional challenges similar to Trump’s, and the 11th Circuit has already reversed one of Cannon’s decisions regarding Trump’s document handling.

Consequently, with Cannon’s dismissal and appeals ongoing, along with delays surrounding the 2020 election case, Trump’s prosecutions are unlikely to proceed before the November 5 election.

Source: CBS News