Special counsel Jack Smith appeals ruling tossing Trump’s classified documents case
Smith says U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon was wrong when she dismissed the case last month against Trump for mishandling secret documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
FILE - Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to the media about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Trump investigations 101
- Former President Trump is accused in Georgia and D.C. of plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss
- He is accused in Florida of hoarding classified documents. The case was dismissed in July 2024
- He was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through hush money payments
Special Counsel Jack Smith says U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon was wrong when she dismissed the case last month against former President Donald Trump for mishandling classified and top-secret documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.
In a brief filed with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Smith says Judge Cannon was also mistaken in ruling that the process used to appoint the Special Counsel was unconstitutional.
Smith is appealing Cannon’s ruling, asking the 11th Circuit Court to reverse her order to dismiss the case and send it back “for further proceedings.” In his brief, the Special Counsel does not ask the court to remove the Trump-appointed judge from the case.
Even before her dismissal, Cannon was criticized by legal observers for delays and rulings that favored Trump. If the Appeals court reverses her ruling, many legal observers believe it may also ask Cannon to recuse herself from the case.
In her ruling last month, Judge Cannon said that Attorney General Merrick Garland exceeded his constitutional authority in appointing a prosecutor who was not subject to Congressional approval. “The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority,” she wrote, “threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers.”
Related Content
Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents case over concerns with prosecutor’s appointment
Trump faced dozens of felony counts accusing him of illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back.
4 months ago
Cannon’s opinion runs counter to decades of rulings by other federal courts upholding the constitutionality of the Special Counsel’s office.
In her analysis, Cannon examined an important 1974 Watergate-era Supreme Court opinion. Cannon determined that the Justice’s “passing remarks” are not “binding precedent on future cases.” But in his brief Smith says, “The district court erred.” In that case, Smith says the Supreme Court held “the Attorney General has statutory authority…to appoint a special prosecutor comparable to the Special Counsel.”
Smith lists four statutes passed by Congress that authorize the appointment and funding of the Special Counsel’s office.
“Precedent and history confirm those authorities,” Smith writes, “as do the long tradition of special-counsel appointments by Attorneys General and Congress’ endorsement of the practice.” Special Counsels have been appointed by Attorneys’ General for more than 150 years, Smith points out, and were used after the Civil War to prosecute Jefferson Davis for treason and a conspirator involved in the assassination of President Lincoln.
Trump’s lawyers have 30 days to file their reply to Smith’s brief. Smith is asking the 11th Circuit to schedule oral arguments, saying he believes they “would assist the Court’s decisional process in this case of significant public importance.”
Get daily updates from WHYY News!
WHYY is your source for fact-based, in-depth journalism and information. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on financial support from readers like you. Please give today.
Elon Musk’s $1 million-a-day voter sweepstakes can proceed, a Pennsylvania judge says
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner had called the sweepstakes a scam that violates state election law and asked that it be shut down.
16 hours ago
Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to count contested provisional ballots, rejecting Republican plea
The justices left in place a state Supreme Court ruling that elections officials must count provisional ballots cast by voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected.
3 days ago
Pennsylvania challenge of Elon Musk’s $1M-a-day voter sweepstakes moves back to state court
The ruling is a loss for the world's richest man and his political action committee.
3 days ago