Heroic Judge Aileen Cannon Dismisses Florida Documents Case Against Trump, Citing the Illegal Appointment of Jack Smith

In a 93 page opinion, she lays out her reasoning: Jack Smith was illegally appointed by Merrick Garland. Garland failed to follow the legal course for a special prosecutor appointment.

You may remember that in the presidential immunity decision, Justice Thomas pointed out that this special counsel was appointed illegally.

The Appropriations and Appointments clauses set out the requirements for appointing, and funding, a special counsel: The nominee must be approved by Congress, and so too must funding for the office by approved by Congress.

Instead of following this simple plan -- probably because he didn't want Jack Smith's partisan history picked over by Congress -- Merrick Garland usurped the authority of Congress and appointed him by his own claimed power.

The federal judge overseeing the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump and his two codefendants has dismissed the charges against them, ruling that the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution was in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

"The bottom line is this: 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," wrote U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in her 93-page order. "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."

The judge wrote that if the political branches want to grant the attorney general power to appoint Smith to investigate and prosecute Trump, with the powers of a U.S. attorney, there is a valid means to do so: he can be appointed and confirmed through the means laid out in the Appointments Clause, or Congress can authorize his appointment through legislation consistent with the Constitution.

Cannon also wrote in her ruling that the dismissal only applies to the classified documents case and not Smith's January 6 case against Trump, which is out of her jurisdiction.

Although the DC case isn't directly impacted by this decision -- both judges are on the same plane, so one judge's ruling isn't binding on another -- the split in authority will presumably now go to an appeals court to decide who is right.

Jonathan Turley commented on X:

Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley

The dismissal of the classified documents case is a seismic development. From the beginning of all of these cases, I have said that the Mar-a-Lago case was the greatest threat to the former president. It is now dismissed.

...This was the three-point shot for Trump. The easier basket was the D.C. case despite a far more favorable judge for Jack Smith. That case is inundated with presumptively privileged evidence and challenged charges...

...Judge Cannon's decision mirrors the views of many leading lawyers who see the same constitutional flaw that led Justice Clarence Thomas to expressly raise his issue in his recent opinion...

...There are good faith arguments on both sides of this question but even critics must acknowledge that anomaly of having a constitutionally mandated confirmation process for U.S. Attorneys but then allow an ad hoc system of unilateral appointments for special counsels ...

...This opinion is still an outlier among the courts that have reviewed the question. Other courts have given short shrift to the issue. Judge Cannon was criticized for giving this challenge a full opportunity for briefing and argument in her court.

...The decision is another example of how Smith misplayed his hand in piling on charges in Flordia. If he had simply gone forward with the obstruction charge, he could have had a trial before the election...

...Of all of the cases that Trump would want to see dismissed from the Trump perspective, this is the one. For Trump's perspective, this has always been lawfare and this is the second close miss in a week by his enemies. Whether the Florida case was lawfare or legitimate, Smith overloaded the case with charges that slowed it down and made it even more vulnerable to challenges.

The Trump Derangement Syndrome left is so filled with hatred, and so determined to show off their performative "virtue" of the intensity of their hatred for Trump, that they become irrational and make terrible choices, not just for the country and Constitution, but for their own political/legal position.

...We will have to see how Smith will now respond from an appeal to the possible refiling by a confirmed U.S. Attorney. Historically, he has not gone quietly into the night when faced with legal obstacles...

...Cannon finds both unconstitutional elements in the appointment by Garland and the appropriations given to Smith -- all without the consent of Congress...

...""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."

Obviously, the left will intensify its vicious attacks on Cannon -- just as it's pretending to call for a "lowering of the temperature" of political rhetoric.

More from Judge Cannon's ruling:

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 @julie_kelly2 1h Cannon:

"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.

"The Framers gave Congress a pivotal role in the appointment of principal and inferior officers. 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. But it plainly did not do so here, despite the Special Counsel's strained statutory readings."

Thanks to andycanuck.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 12:06 PM

| Access Comments