Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the special counsel’s appointment violated the appointments clause of the Constitution.
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.
By Sam Dorman
