In a verdict that reads like a courtroom drama penned by a political thriller novelist, Judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed the high-profile classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. The dismissal, hinging on the unlawful appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith, has sent shockwaves through the legal and political landscapes alike. This decision marks a significant setback for the Biden administration and the Department of Justice, raising serious questions about the integrity of the entire investigation.
The heart of the matter revolves around the constitutional propriety of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment. Judge Cannon’s ruling highlighted that Smith’s role as Special Counsel violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that principal officers must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Cannon’s opinion emphasized the importance of this clause in maintaining the separation of powers, stating, “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.”
HUGE NEWS: The Biden DOJ's classified documents case against Trump IS NOW DISMISSED.
Judge Cannon ruled the special counsel appointment was unconstitutional.
This was their "strongest" Trump case. pic.twitter.com/FPz04TGcNS
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 15, 2024
The case originated from a grand jury indictment on June 8, 2023, charging Trump with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information, plus additional conspiracy and concealment charges involving his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. The indictment later expanded to 42 charges in a superseding indictment. Trump’s legal team argued vigorously that Smith’s appointment breached constitutional requirements, insisting that an officer like the Special Counsel must be appointed “by law” and should be a principal officer subject to Senate confirmation.
Judge Cannon agreed, pointing out that none of the statutes cited by the Special Counsel’s office provided the Attorney General with the authority needed to appoint a Special Counsel with the full powers of a United States Attorney. This scathing critique called into question not just the legality of Smith’s appointment but also the broader implications for the separation of powers within the federal government.
This ruling is more intertwined with the constitutional framework than a strand of DNA in a forensic lab. The court found that Smith’s use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, although it chose not to address the remedy for this funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.
Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas had previously questioned Jack Smith’s authority in his concurring opinion on the presidential immunity ruling, asserting that a private citizen could not criminally prosecute anyone without a duly established office by law.
This decision doesn’t just halt the prosecution led by Jack Smith—it sends a powerful message about the necessity of adhering to constitutional principles, even in politically charged cases. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s role in appointing Smith has now come under intense scrutiny, with questions swirling about whether due process was followed.
As the political arena absorbs this legal bombshell, Trump’s supporters are celebrating the dismissal as a vindication, while critics are left grappling with the ramifications. The Biden administration and DOJ must now reassess their strategies in prosecuting high-profile cases, ensuring that constitutional requirements are meticulously observed.
Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the classified documents case against Trump stands out as a landmark ruling. It underscores the delicate balance of power within the federal government and reaffirms the critical role of the Constitution in guiding legal processes.