For the first time in U.S. history, a federal judge has declared the appointment of a special prosecutor to be unconstitutional, dismissing one of former President Donald Trump’s most serious criminal cases and potentially challenging a long-accepted legal practice.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Attorney General Merrick Garland had no authority to appoint Jack Smith as a special counsel to investigate Trump’s alleged crimes.
Although the ruling is expected to be appealed, for now, it halts Trump’s prosecution for allegedly retaining classified documents after leaving the White House. This decision could lead to another significant constitutional battle.
Peter Carr, spokesperson for the special counsel, released a statement criticizing Cannon’s ruling as a departure from previous court conclusions that the Attorney General is authorized to appoint a Special Counsel. Carr stated that the Justice Department has authorized an appeal but did not specify if or when Smith would pursue it.
Inside a small federal courtroom in Florida, prosecutor James Pearce emphasized the historical role special prosecutors have played in U.S. history, from the Whiskey Ring scandal to Watergate. Despite this, Cannon ruled Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and dismissed Trump’s case in a 93-page decision.
The Constitution requires the president to obtain the Senate’s “advice and consent” to appoint federal officers but allows “heads of departments” to appoint inferior officers if Congress authorizes it. Cannon found that the statutes the Department of Justice cited did not authorize Smith’s appointment, even if he were considered an “inferior officer.” She also suggested Smith could be a “principal officer,” requiring Senate confirmation, but did not definitively rule on this.
Other criminal defendants have unsuccessfully challenged special prosecutors’ legality, and most of these cases were decided outside of Cannon’s 11th Circuit. Cannon distinguished the Supreme Court’s precedents, such as the 1974 case involving President Richard Nixon, by noting that Nixon did not contest the prosecutor’s authority at the time.
Attorney Matthew Seligman, who argued against Trump in this case, predicted a swift appeal, calling Cannon’s decision unfounded in precedent.
Cannon has faced criticism for perceived pro-Trump bias, especially following her decisions after the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago. The 11th Circuit previously reversed her decision to block prosecutors from using evidence obtained through that search.
Smith can appeal the dismissal to the 11th Circuit or attempt to take it directly to the Supreme Court. The ruling, if upheld, could impact other Department of Justice officials, including those overseeing divisions and leading Supreme Court arguments.
While U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is handling Trump’s election interference case, is not bound by Cannon’s ruling, she is bound by D.C. Circuit precedent that contradicts it. Should Trump challenge Smith’s appointment in Chutkan’s court, the matter might ultimately need to be settled by the Supreme Court.
Any validation of Cannon’s ruling could complicate the appointment of independent special counsels to investigate sitting administrations, potentially making criminal investigations of incumbent presidents more difficult.
The case was heard at the Alto Lee Adams Sr. United States Courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida.