A federal judge in Florida dismissed the prosecution of former President Donald Trump in the “documents” case due to the ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith had not been appointed in a constitutional or lawful manner.
Judge Aileen Cannon granted a defense motion, highlighting concerns around the appointment process and adherence to constitutional protocols.
“In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny,” Cannon wrote.
The dismissal of the classified documents case is a seismic development. From the beginning of all of these cases, I have said that the Mar-a-Lago case was the greatest threat to the former president. It is now dismissed.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 15, 2024
“In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny. Perhaps this can be traced back to reliance on stray dictum in Nixon that perpetuated in subsequent cases,” she wrote.
“Perhaps it can be justified practically by the urgency of national crises. Or perhaps it can be explained by the relative infrequency of these types of investigations, by congressional inattention, or by the important roles that special-counsel-like figures have played in our country’s history. Regardless of the explanation, the present Motion requires careful analysis of the statutory landscape to ensure compliance with the Constitution, and the Court has endeavored to do so with care.”
“The Court thus returns to where it started. The Appointments Clause is ‘among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.’ Edmond, 520 U.S. at 659. So too is the Appropriations Clause, which carefully separates Congressional control of the ‘purse’ from Executive control of the ‘sword.’ The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton). The consequences of relaxing either of those critical provisions are serious, both in this case and beyond.”
“As Justice Frankfurter explained in his opinion in Youngstown, ‘[t]he accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority.’ Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 594 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). ‘[I]llegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing . . . by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure.’ Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886),” she added.
The ruling came amidst the ongoing legal battles against Trump, including other prosecutions, with some suggesting political implications and biases.
The decision has significant implications for the legal campaign against Trump and raises questions about the handling of his cases.
