Federal prosecutors asked an appeals court Monday to restore Donald Trump’s classified documents case, pushing back on the former president's claims that Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution, NBC News reports. "The Attorney General validly appointed the Special Counsel, who is also properly funded," Assistant Special Counsel James Pearce, a member of Smith's team, wrote in a brief filed with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. "In ruling otherwise, the district court deviated from binding Supreme Court precedent, misconstrued the statutes that authorized the Special Counsel’s appointment, and took inadequate account of the longstanding history of Attorney General appointments of special counsels." U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, last month granted Trump’s attorneys’ request to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that Smith's appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution's appointments and appropriations clauses.
The brief also notes that attorneys general have been appointing special counsels for more than 150 years, quoting from a 1998 law review article written by now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh that refers to the practice as a “deeply rooted tradition.” The brief places a lot of emphasis on the Supreme Court’s 1974 ruling in United States v. Nixon, in which the court upheld the enforceability of a subpoena issued by the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal. The legality of a special counsel or prosecutor was not directly at question in Nixon, but the Supreme Court issued its ruling based on the presumption that such appointments were allowed. Cannon’s order dismissing Trump’s classified documents case referred to that section of the Nixon decision as nonbinding, but Smith's team contended Monday that the decision was binding to lower courts.
Comments