A federal judge has dismissed the case against former President Donald Trump (R) for allegedly storing and mishandling classified documents at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.
In her more than ninety page decision, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon asserted that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
Although this ruling is eligible for appeal to a higher court, it has temporarily halted the proceedings against the former president with respect what some experts have referred to as the most serious set of charges with which he was confronted.
Judge Cannon argued in her ruling that the Appointments Clause serves as an important tool for maintaining the separation of powers and the process by which the Special Counsel was appointed usurps this division of authority.
She goes on to explain that federal law, as currently written, does not authorize the Attorney General to grant someone the broad powers entrusted to Special Counsel Smith.
In other words, there was no constitutional authority for Special Counsel Smith’s office to exist, let alone to bring charges against Trump.
Smith was appointed in late-2022 by Attorney General Merrick Garland from “outside the United States Government” to serve as Special Counsel. Consequently, he “was not nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate.”
Contrary to the arguments advanced by Cannon, other courts have affirmed the Attorney General’s authority to appoint special counsels.
Cannon’s ruling comes two days after the former president was the target of an attempted assassination that left one rally attendee dead and two other injured.
[RELATED: TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT — Bloody Don Fist Bumps After Shooter Fires at PA Rally]
This past June, a Florida grand jury indicted former President Trump on thirty-one counts of “willful retention of national defense information” and seven “conspiracy and concealment charges.”
A Superseding Indictment was returned shortly thereafter that increased the total number of charges to forty-two.
Smith signed both of these indictments.
If convicted, the former president faced up a maximum prison sentence of at least 100 years and millions of dollars in fines. Trump plead not guilty on all counts.
In February of this year, Trump’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss “based on the unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith,” arguing that “his appointment violates the Appointments Clause.”
The motion to dismiss goes on to suggest that Smith’s appointment was unlawful because:
“(1) Special Counsel Smith was not nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate, as would be required for the appointment of a principal officer or for the appointment of an inferior officer as to which Congress has not authorized such appointment, and
(2) even accepting the position that he qualifies as an inferior officer, none of the statutes cited in the Appointment Order vests the Attorney General with the authority to appoint a special counsel ‘with the full power and authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney,’ as is the case with Special Counsel Smith.”
According to the judge, “Congress retains a pivotal role in the appointment sphere, a role that cannot be usurped or expanded.”
“The Appointments Clause imposes a mandatory and exclusive procedure that must be enforced according to its plain meaning, without exception,” she wrote.
In her ruling, the judge cited Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent concurring opinion in the presidential immunity decision released earlier this month in which he wrote separately in order to call question the process by which the Special Counsel was appointed.
“The bottom line is this,” Cannon wrote, “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.”
“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,” she argued. “If the political branches wish to grant the Attorney General power to appoint Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this action with the full powers of a United States Attorney, there is a valid means by which to do so.”
“None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith,” the judge stated. “Nor do the Special Counsel’s strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit authority persuade otherwise.”
Cannon goes on to further condemn Smith’s appointment as a violation of the Constitution that jeopardizes the structure upon which the United States government is built.
“Upon careful study of the foundational challenges raised in the Motion, the Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s Smith’s prosecution of this action 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,” she wrote.
“The Framers gave Congress a pivotal role in the appointment of principal and inferior officers,” the judge continued. “That role cannot be usurped by the Executive Branch or diffused elsewhere—whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not.”
“In the case of inferior officers, that means that Congress is empowered to decide if it wishes to vest appointment power in a Head of Department, and indeed, Congress has proven itself quite capable of doing so in many other statutory contexts,” she stated. “But it plainly did not do so here, despite the Special Counsel’s strained statutory readings.”
“Nor does his appeal to inconsistent ‘historical practice’ supplant the absence of textual authorization for his appointment,” the judge concluded. “The same structural emphases resonate in the context of the Appropriation Clause, which ’embodies a fundamental separation of powers principle—subjugating the executive branch to the legislatures power of the purse.'”
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) reacted to this ruling on X, praising it as “good news for America and for the rule of law.”
This is good news for America and for the rule of law. House Republicans repeatedly argued that Special Counsel Jack Smith abused his office’s authority in pursuit of President Trump, and now a federal judge has ruled Smith never possessed the authority in the first place.
— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) July 15, 2024
As we… https://t.co/3zj9p5Vqs3
Senate Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also posted a response to the ruling on X, denouncing it as “breathtakingly misguided.”
This breathtakingly misguided ruling flies in the face of long-accepted practice and repetitive judicial precedence. It is wrong on the law and must be appealed immediately. This is further evidence that Judge Cannon cannot handle this case impartially and must be reassigned. https://t.co/jlfyavg7lB
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) July 15, 2024
Trump himself issued a statement on X regarding Monday’s decision in which said the ruling ought to be a “first step” and advocated for all other cases against him to be dismissed as well, referring to them as “Witch Hunts.”
“The Democrat Justice Department coordinated ALL of these Political Attacks, which are an Election Interference conspiracy against Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME,” he wrote. “Let us come together to END all Weaponization of our Justice System, and Make America Great Again!”
Cannon was appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Senate in November of 2020.
Click Here to Read Judge Cannon’s Full Ruling
Yes,….. God bless the US Constitution,……
God damn the leftist democrats,……