In a surprising decision that removes one of the most significant legal obstacles confronting the ex-president, a federal court on Monday threw out the classified papers case against Trump.
District Judge Aileen Cannon found that special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional in her 93-page decision. Regarding Trump’s purported misuse of secret documents, she refrained from rendering a ruling.
The appointment of “regulatory” special counsels by the executive branch in recent years has been done on an as-needed basis, without much judicial oversight, according to Cannon’s writing.
Judge Cannon, who Trump nominated in 2020, issued his decision on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, just as the country is still recovering from the weekend’s failed assassination attempt on Trump. Many legal experts had judged the classified documents case to be the strongest of the four pending charges against the former president, even if a trial before the presidential election was very unlikely.
In an interview with Truth Social, Trump stated that the dismissal “should be just the first step” in his push to have all of the allegations against him dropped, calling them “political attacks.”
Requests for comment were forwarded by the White House to the Justice Department. A call for comment was not returned by Smith’s office.
President Trump was indicted by Smith last year on charges of stealing sensitive government papers and subsequently thwarting efforts to recover them. He entered a not guilty plea.
The special counsel was pursuing federal charges in a separate criminal case that Smith had filed in Washington, DC, against Trump. The accusations stemmed from Trump’s efforts to reverse the 2020 election results. Earlier this year, Trump was found guilty of state crimes in New York for his involvement in a hush money payment scheme that occurred before the 2016 election. He is also facing an election subversion prosecution at the state level in Georgia.
Attempts by Trump to dismiss the case under the appointments clause were viewed as a long shot, given that multiple special counsels had been handled in a similar manner, even during his presidency.
Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court lent credence to the theory in a footnote to the high court’s decision on presidential immunity, stating that there are “serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law,” giving the fringe argument more traction. Before this case can move forward, those questions need to be addressed.
Nonetheless, a few weeks ago, Cannon convened a hearing to discuss the matter, during which he pressed lawyers to disclose the sources of funding for Smith’s inquiry into Trump. James Pearce, special counsel, claimed that the Justice Department was “prepared” to support Smith’s claims through trial if required, even if Cannon were to throw out the case owing to an appointments clause issue, in response to the judge’s hard inquiries.
In her decision, Cannon stated that the appointment of a special counsel “effectively usurps” Congress’ “important legislative authority” because it is left to the head of a department, in this instance the Department of Justice, to make the appointment.
She stated that there is a legitimate way for the political branches to authorize the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute the case with the full authority of a United States Attorney.
Might this case be revived?
According to Cannon’s order on Monday, the Justice Department “could reallocate funds to finance the continued operation of Special Counsel Smith’s office,” but it is still uncertain if a newly-brought case would be legally acceptable.
“For over 18 months, the investigation and prosecution led by Special Counsel Smith have been funded by substantial funds taken from the Treasury without statutory authorization. At this point, it seems nearly impossible to try to rewrite history,” Cannon wrote. “Considering the gravity of the separation-of-powers violation, the Court finds it difficult to envision a remedy other than dismissal. However, the solutions are not completely obvious, and the body of caselaw is inadequate.”
In her decision, she made note of the fact that during a court hearing, Smith’s team “suggested” that they could reorganize the office’s finances to address her worries.
