WASHINGTON — U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith has asked a federal appeals court to reverse the dismissal of a case alleging former President Donald Trump mishandled classified documents at his Florida home after he left the Oval Office.
The appeals process could take months, likely closing the door on any movement in the classified documents case against Trump, the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, before November’s election.
Smith argued late Monday that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to toss the case was based on a “flawed” argument that Smith was illegally appointed to the office of special counsel.
Over an 81-page brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Smith cited statutes and a Watergate-era Supreme Court decision to argue the time-tested legality of U.S. attorneys general to appoint and fund independent, or special, counsels.
“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,” Smith wrote.
Further, he warned, “[t]he district court’s rationale could jeopardize the longstanding operation of the Justice Department and call into question hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch.”
Cannon, a federal judge for the Southern District of Florida, dismissed the classified documents case against Trump on July 15 — two days after Trump was injured in an attempted assassination in Pennsylvania and just as the Republican National Convention kicked off in Wisconsin.
Cannon is a Trump appointee who was nominated in 2020 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate later that year.
Trump had argued for the case’s dismissal in February.
Days before he was set to officially accept the party’s nomination for president, Trump hailed Cannon’s dismissal as a way to unite the nation following the attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Cannon argued Smith’s appointment violated two clauses of the U.S. Constitution that govern how presidential administrations and Congress appoint and approve “Officers of the United States,” and how taxpayer money can be used to pay their salaries and other expenses.
Smith appealed her decision just days later.
Smith’s historic case against Trump marked the first time a former U.S. president faced federal criminal charges.
A grand jury handed up a 37-count indictment in June 2023 charging the former president, along with his aide Walt Nauta, with felonies related to mishandling classified documents after Trump’s term in office, including storing them at his Florida Mar-a-Lago estate. A superseding indictment that added charges and another co-defendant was handed up a little over a month later.
The classified documents case is just one of several legal entanglements for Trump, who became a convicted felon in New York state court in May.
The former president also continues to face federal criminal charges for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. That case has also been in a holding pattern for several months as Trump appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the charges should be dropped based on presidential criminal immunity.
The Supreme Court ruled in early July that the former presidents enjoy immunity for official “core Constitutional” acts and returned the case to the federal trial court in Washington, D.C.
Smith has until the end of August to assess how the immunity decision affects the election subversion case against Trump. A pre-trial hearing is scheduled for Sept. 5.
Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com. Follow Kentucky Lantern on Facebook and X.
