Judge shreds classified documents case against Trump

On Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. Cannon made the decision on procedural grounds—citing constitutional flaws in the manner of Smith’s appointment—rather than issues with the case’s underlying legal theory.

The dismissal hinges on interpretations of the Constitution’s appointment and appropriations clauses, which outline the required steps for installing and funding both “principal” and “inferior” officers.

John Malcolm, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the issues at play are “very serious” since those provisions of the Constitution aim to keep officials from filling government positions with their “cronies.”

The core controversy at play is “whether Jack Smith’s appointment was statutorily authorized to be made by the attorney general alone,” said Thomas Berry, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute.

When it comes to filling high stakes jobs such as Cabinet roles or federal judgeships, Berry said the Constitution establishes a “default rule” that the Senate must confirm such nominees by a majority vote. Officials may fill other lower positions as specified in the law. But the statute that would have authorized U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to install Smith lapsed in 1999.

As a result, Garland relied on Department of Justice regulations, rather than actual statutory provisions, in appointing Smith to the role of special prosecutor.

The Independent Counsel Act, the legislation that would have given legitimacy to Garland’s decision, passed in response to former President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal. Berry said it was meant to uphold the separation of powers by curbing the president’s authority to fire DOJ investigators scrutinizing his conduct.

Cannon echoes that concern in her opinion: “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.”

Although this argument has been raised against a handful of other special prosecutors—most notably in Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia—this is the first time a judge has overturned a special prosecutor’s authority in this way.

Still, the case is far from over. Smith now has the option to appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or to petition the U.S. Supreme Court directly. And even though Cannon’s decision probably won’t immediately affect the election interference case Smith is leading against Trump in Washington, Berry said the two cases will almost certainly share the same fate in the long run.

“I don’t think we’re going to end up in a situation where we just have differing legal decisions in D.C. and Florida that are never reconciled,” Berry said. “That would just be too much of a glaring inconsistency for the Supreme Court to allow to happen.”

When the question of appointment authority came up in litigation with Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor investigating potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, the federal court in the District of Columbia rejected it. That’s the same district in which Smith’s election interference case is currently advancing, and Berry said he expects Judge Tanya Chutkan will consider the previous D.C. ruling as binding precedent.

If that happens, and if the 11th Circuit affirms Cannon’s opinion, Berry said the result will be a “circuit split” that will almost certainly wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of that, Berry expects both cases will ultimately resolve the same way—either with Smith removed or reinstated, or with a new lawfully appointed special counsel appointed to take his place.

For now, Cannon’s decision is a big win for the Trump campaign since experts had widely regarded Smith’s classified documents as the heavy weight among his four indictments. Malcolm said the facts in the case seemed the most straightforward and “easily provable.” Obstruction of justice charges carry a maximum 20-year prison sentence.

At the Republican National Convention, delegates uniformly hailed the dismissal as a triumph of justice. “I’m extremely glad,” said South Carolina RNC delegate Pat Murray. “Because I thought all along that it was not valid, and today’s court ruling just proved it.”

Coming on the heels of a failed assassination attempt against the Republican nominee, this decision is likely to further solidify Trump’s already iron grip on his party’s support and put him in a strong position come November.

“There is no doubt this helped President Trump,” Mississippi RNC delegate Barry Bridgforth said of Monday’s decision. “It is going to help President Trump, and it’s going to hurt Biden.”