Ed Meese, the former Attorney General, has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the requests of Special Counsel Jack Smith, arguing that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Wednesday, Meese, along with law professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, contended that the appointment of Smith, a private citizen, by Attorney General Merrick Garland, contravenes the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
The brief asserts, "Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor." It further contends, "Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos."
This brief was submitted in response to Smith's plea to the court to expedite the case of former President Donald Trump, who is arguing for presidential immunity for his actions on January 6, 2021. These actions are linked to criminal charges brought forth by Smith.
Meese maintains that the "illegality" of Smith's appointment is "sufficient to sink Smiths petition, and the Court should deny review." The brief notes that Smith was assigned "to conduct the ongoing investigation into whether any person or entity [including former President Donald Trump] violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021."
While Garland cited statutory authority for this appointment, Meese counters that "none of those statutes, nor any other statutory or constitutional provisions, remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel."
Furthermore, Meese, who served under former President Reagan, argued that "the Special Counsel, if a valid officer, is a superior (or principal) rather than inferior officer, and thus cannot be appointed by any means other than presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation regardless of what any statutes purport to say."
Earlier this month, Smith appealed to the Supreme Court to rule on Trumps immunity claims in his case, which involves charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. Smith has requested expedited consideration of the case, essentially asking the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction before lower federal courts have fully resolved the matter. Smith's aim is to keep Trumps trial in Washington, D.C., which is scheduled to commence on March 4, on track.
Login