On Monday, special counsel Jack Smith’s team filed an appeal to reinstate the criminal charges against Donald Trump related to his retention of classified documents. This move follows U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the case based on the argument that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional.
In the 81-page appeal, prosecutors assert that Cannon made errors by concluding that Smith’s appointment violated constitutional principles. They argue that Cannon misinterpreted the relevant statutes and ignored prior court decisions that validate Smith’s appointment.
Cannon’s dismissal was grounded in her belief that Smith, having been appointed externally rather than as a Senate-confirmed Justice Department official, lacked lawful authority. She wrote, “Because special counsel Smith’s exercise of prosecutorial power has not been authorized by law, the court sees no way forward aside from dismissal of the superseding indictment.”
Prosecutors counter that the Attorney General has broad authority to appoint special counsels, as authorized by federal law. They argue that the statutes in question, including Section 515 and Section 533 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, support the legality of Smith’s appointment.
Section 515 allows for the appointment of officials under specific directives from the Attorney General, and Section 533 permits the Attorney General to appoint officials for investigating and prosecuting crimes. Cannon had contested these interpretations, suggesting that these statutes were intended for other purposes, such as hiring FBI officials or existing Justice Department officers.
The appeal marks the beginning of a potentially lengthy legal battle that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court, impacting not only the documents case but also Trump’s broader legal issues in Washington.
