Written by Michael Thompson.
In a significant ruling, a federal judge in Florida has dismissed the criminal case related to classified documents against former President Donald Trump. The judge, Aileen Cannon, declared that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutional, thus invalidating the case.
Cannon’s decision is grounded in the argument that the Biden administration’s appointment of Smith bypassed essential legislative authority. This raises crucial questions about the separation of powers and the proper channels for such appointments. Her ruling indicates a significant breach of constitutional protocol, as Smith was operating with powers typically reserved for an attorney general without proper congressional authorization.
Cannon’s ruling states, “The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers.”
Implications and Political Reactions
This dismissal could be appealed, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. The argument that Smith’s appointment was illegitimate originated from an amicus curiae brief filed by former Ronald Reagan attorney general Ed Meese. This brief was part of the Trump v. U.S. case, which also examined Trump’s presidential immunity in Smith’s Washington, D.C., case.
Many viewed the classified documents case as Trump’s most formidable legal obstacle. Its dismissal coincided with the start of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee and just two days after Trump survived an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Reacting to the dismissal, Trump took to Truth Social, stating, “This dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida should be just the first step, followed quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts.” He further accused the Democrat Justice Department of coordinating these attacks as part of an election interference conspiracy.
Legal Foundations and Future Prospects
Judge Cannon’s ruling emphasized the unconstitutionality of Smith’s appointment due to a lack of congressional authorization. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution assigns Congress a critical role in approving such appointments, which was overlooked in this case.
Cannon explained, “The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers.”
Her ruling suggests Trump could still face prosecution, but this delay might push the case beyond the upcoming election, possibly nullifying it altogether. Cannon also pointed out that while appointing special counsels has become more common, this practice lacks solid legal grounding.
The origins of this case trace back to a 2022 raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, where federal authorities discovered classified documents that Trump allegedly retained after leaving office. In contrast, President Joe Biden, who also held classified documents post-office, was deemed unfit to stand trial and was not prosecuted.
Our Take
This ruling underscores a profound constitutional issue regarding the separation of powers. By bypassing Congress, the Biden administration overstepped its authority, setting a dangerous precedent. This case exemplifies the importance of adhering to constitutional protocols, especially when dealing with high-profile political figures. It’s troubling to see such disregard for established legislative processes, and this decision serves as a reminder of the need for stringent adherence to the Constitution. The public deserves transparency and accountability, and this case highlights the ongoing struggle to maintain these principles in our justice system.
