Trump/ classified documents/ special counsel/ Jack Smith/ court dismissal/ federal appeals court/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour Morning Edition/ Donald Trump’s lawyers are urging an appeals court to uphold a judge’s dismissal of his classified documents case, arguing that the prosecutor, Jack Smith, was unlawfully appointed. The decision to dismiss halted any trial until after the 2024 election. Smith’s team has appealed, citing precedents, while Trump’s lawyers contend the special counsel appointment lacked legal basis.
Trump’s Lawyers Appeal to Dismiss Classified Documents Case: Quick Looks
- Case Background: Trump’s classified documents case was dismissed after ruling prosecutor’s appointment unlawful.
- Legal Argument: Trump’s team claims special counsel Jack Smith’s role lacks legal basis.
- Prosecution’s Standpoint: Smith’s team argues the dismissal contradicts established legal precedents.
- Broader Impact: Dismissal raises questions over the legality of similar special counsel appointments.
Trump’s Legal Team Urges Court to Dismiss Classified Documents Case
Deep Look
Lawyers for former President Donald Trump have asked a federal appeals court to uphold a judge’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case against him. The Trump legal team argues that the dismissal by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon was correct, given that the special counsel who brought the case, Jack Smith, was allegedly appointed illegally by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The classified documents case, centering on Trump’s alleged retention of sensitive government materials at his Mar-a-Lago estate, was seen as a significant legal hurdle in his 2024 campaign. Judge Cannon’s July ruling dismissed the case on the grounds that Smith’s appointment lacked statutory and constitutional validity, as he was not Senate-confirmed and was appointed directly by Garland. The ruling has effectively put the case on hold, ensuring no trial before the November 2024 presidential election. Smith’s team has appealed the decision, arguing that the dismissal undermines decades of legal precedent and could potentially challenge the legality of many similar appointments across the executive branch.
In their Friday filing, Trump’s attorneys urged the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to uphold Cannon’s ruling, stating that the special counsel’s actions represented an “unlawful crusade against President Trump” and asserting that Smith had operated with an unchecked scope that extended beyond the limits of traditional U.S. attorney appointments.
“There is not, and never has been, a basis for Jack Smith’s unlawful crusade against President Trump,” Trump’s lawyers argued in their filing, alleging that Smith had acted with little oversight and accountability, contrary to the hallmarks expected of “inferior officers.” The legal team argued that the broad jurisdiction Smith wielded exceeded the standard powers of presidentially appointed U.S. attorneys, thereby requiring Senate confirmation.
Judge Cannon, in her July decision, noted that while Smith’s team had cited several statutes permitting a special counsel’s appointment, her reading found no explicit statutory authorization for an attorney general to make such an appointment. Cannon further argued that because Smith had not been Senate-confirmed, his direct appointment by Garland violated constitutional norms.
Smith’s legal team, however, counters that multiple previous special counsels, including Robert Mueller during the Trump administration and Robert Hur under the Biden administration, were appointed in the same manner. Court challenges to these appointments, Smith’s team noted, have previously been unsuccessful. Smith’s team contends that Cannon’s decision contradicts established legal principles that have governed special counsel appointments for decades, raising concerns that Cannon’s ruling could cast doubt on similar roles within the executive branch.
The ongoing legal battle may have further implications. On Thursday, Trump’s attorneys in the federal election interference case filed a similar claim, questioning Smith’s appointment and arguing for the case’s dismissal on the same constitutional grounds.
The 11th Circuit Court’s ruling on this issue could impact the prosecution’s authority in ongoing and future cases involving special counsel appointments, particularly as these roles continue to play prominent roles in high-stakes investigations.
