A federal judge in Florida on Monday took out The criminal case focused on how former President Donald Trump handled classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, ruling that the appointment of the prosecutor in the case, special counsel Jack Smith, violated the Constitution.
It was a huge blow to prosecutors in a case that has already suffered repeated delays, delivered a verdict before today’s ruling was unlikely to come before the November election, and handed Trump a big win at the start of this week’s Republican National Convention. But repeated rulings in Trump’s favor by U.S. District Judge Eileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who has been accused of favoring the GOP and the former president, are hardly surprising. Prosecutors are expected to appeal the ruling and potentially request that the case be reassigned to another federal judge.
After the ruling, Trump called for other pending cases against him to be dismissed as well.
“Let’s unite to end all weaponization of our justice system and make America great again!” he wrote On his social platform, TruthSocial.
In his ruling, Cannon argued that because Smith had not been appointed special counsel by the president and confirmed by the Senate, his appointment violated the Constitution. Appointment Clause.
Smith, a longtime government prosecutor, was appointed special counsel in November 2022 by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee the classified documents case. Trump pleaded not guilty to all 37 counts in the indictment Smith and his team eventually filed, including one count of knowingly withholding national defense information and one count of making false statements and representations under the Espionage Act.
Smith was also appointed as special counsel in the investigation of the January 6, 2021 riot at the US Capitol. Smith later indicted Trump on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. That case is ongoing, but after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the president has broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed in office, it’s an open question whether he can be prosecuted for his actions related to the rebellion.
Kaman’s ruling, which relied on a strict reading of the Constitution and represented a blatant break with precedent, came under heavy Criticism from jurist. Under his ruling, the appointments of previous special counsels, from Archibald Cox, who investigated the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation, to Robert Mueller, who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election, will also be called into question.
“This is breathtakingly bold for a trial judge who has made it clear that he wants to delay and, if possible, get rid of this case,” said Jed Sugarman, a Fordham law professor and its author. People’s Court.
What the verdict says
Cannon wrote in his opinion that the Constitution allows Congress, by law, to vest department heads — which would include Garland as head of the Judiciary — with the power to appoint “inferior officers” such as a special counsel. But he ruled that Congress had not assumed that power because it had not passed a law governing the election of inferior officials, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had previously done. argued Trump on his consent to the immunity case.
“[I]Is there a statute in the United States Code authorizing the appointment of special counsel Smith to conduct this trial? After careful study of this fundamental issue, the answer is no,” Cannon wrote.
Cannon also ruled that, because Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, he was not authorized to use the permanent indefinite appropriations (which Congress does not approve annually) to fund his office and conduct investigations—meaning he was in violation. Appropriation Clause of the Constitution
The ruling goes against longstanding appeals court rulings, including the D.C. Circuit, the most prestigious court after the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit, which specializes in legal questions of constitutional and administrative law.
Notably, the same question about the legitimacy of special prosecutors was raised before the D.C. Circuit The 2019 case centers on Robert Mueller. Citing precedent in a related case against President Richard Nixon, the Court found that “bound precedent establishes that Congress has “by statute” the power to appoint special counsel as an officer inferior to the Attorney General.”
To Sugarman, Judge Cannon is essentially saying, “I’m not bound by the D.C. Circuit, and I think they misinterpret it.” It shows a “surprising level of dismissal,” he added.
What the ruling means for Trump and the election
Sugarman said prosecutors have grounds to appeal and can ask to have the case sent back to a lower court — and, crucially, reassigned to another judge.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled on Cannon in this case Order appointing a Special Master to oversee the review of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago, further slowing down prosecutions.
“So there was already a first strike and probably a second strike before that,” Sugarman said. “It gives more power to an appeal.”
But the damage caused by litigation can be irreversible. The appeals process will further delay any potential trial, almost certainly until after the election in November.
At this point, the results, not the courts, will decide the November election. If Trump wins, he would likely order his Justice Department to drop the case against him, and because of different statutes of limitations for different charges, it’s unclear whether a future administration could revive it.
