In a surprising turn of events, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Mar-a-Lago documents case on Monday, a decision that has sparked controversy and debate.
The Department of Justice, however, has given special counsel Jack Smith the green light to challenge this ruling. The crux of Cannon's ruling was that Smith's appointment as special counsel was in violation of the Constitution.
According to The Post Millennial, Peter Carr, a spokesperson for Smiths office, expressed his disagreement with the decision, stating, "The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel." He further confirmed that "The Justice Department has authorized the Special Counsel to appeal the courts order."
Former President Trump, who had been facing 37 felony counts in the case, including charges of false statements, willful retention of national defense information, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, had pleaded not guilty to all charges.
In her comprehensive 93-page ruling, Judge Cannon argued that Smiths appointment as special counsel "violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution" and his "use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the Appropriations Clause." She further questioned the legal basis for Smith's appointment, asking whether there was a "statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution."
In her conclusion, she firmly stated, "After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no. None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515, 533gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith. Nor do the Special Counsels strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit authority persuade otherwise." This case continues to underscore the ongoing debate over the scope and power of the Attorney General's office.
Login