Special counsel Jack Smith is taking steps to reinstate the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump after it was dismissed by a federal judge earlier this summer.

Smith filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, challenging the decision made by District Judge Aileen Cannon that appeared to bring the matter to a dead end, and the crux of Smith's argument is that his appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland was lawful, contrary to the judge's ruling, as the Washington Examiner reports.

Cannon, a Trump appointee, previously ruled that Smith's appointment was unlawful, leading to the dismissal of the case. The dismissal was based on the argument that Smith's appointment required Senate approval, which it did not receive.

This ruling came in July, following scrutiny from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who questioned Smith's authority to preside over the case.

Cannon's Decision Faces Challenge On Legal Grounds

On Monday, Smith submitted a comprehensive brief one day ahead of the Tuesday deadline, seeking to overturn Cannon’s decision. His argument centers on what he says is the attorney general's established authority to appoint special counsels without requiring Senate confirmation. Smith's brief draws on historical precedents and previous Supreme Court decisions as support for his position.

The special counsel's office highlighted that attorneys general have long held the power to appoint special and independent counsels. This practice has been used in various significant federal investigations, including the prosecution of Jefferson Davis and the Watergate scandal.

Smith's brief argues that overturning Cannon's ruling is essential to maintaining the Justice Department's operational integrity. He warns that allowing the ruling to stand could disrupt the appointment process for senior officials across the Executive Branch.

Potential Broader Implications Of The Ruling

If upheld, Cannon's ruling could call into question the legality of numerous appointments within the federal government. Legal experts suggest that this could jeopardize the longstanding operation of the Justice Department and other federal agencies. However, it is important to note that Cannon's ruling currently applies only to the South Florida judicial district.

The case in question involves several felony charges against Trump, including retaining classified documents and obstructing efforts to retrieve them. Trump has pleaded not guilty to these charges, maintaining his innocence. The dismissal of the case by Judge Cannon was a significant win for Trump, but Smith's appeal could reopen the legal battle.

Impact On The Justice Department And Beyond

Smith's brief emphasizes what he says are the potential consequences of Cannon's ruling on the broader justice system. He argues that the ruling could undermine the authority of the Attorney General and affect appointments across various government departments. Smith also notes that the ruling could have far-reaching implications for the separation of powers within the federal government.

The legal dispute over Smith's appointment is part of a larger context of political and legal challenges surrounding the Trump administration.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel in November 2022 due to the political sensitivity of the case. This decision was made in light of Trump's candidacy for the 2024 presidential election.

Smith's office also pointed out that the attorney general's authority to appoint special counsels has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past. Government attorneys argue that reversing Cannon's ruling is necessary to ensure the continuity of the Justice Department's operations and to prevent future disruptions.

Smith's Office Warns of Disruption to Justice Department

In his filing, Smith warned that upholding Cannon's order could jeopardize the functioning of the Justice Department and the appointment of officials across the Executive Branch. He noted that the authority of the attorney general to appoint special counsels has been a cornerstone of the Justice Department's operations since its inception.

Smith's team also highlighted the historical context of special counsel appointments, referencing past cases in which such appointments were crucial in handling sensitive federal investigations. His attorneys argued that Cannon's ruling conflicts with a long-standing tradition of special counsel appointments and could have significant consequences for the Justice Department.

Conclusion

Smith's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit represents a significant effort to revive the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.

The case, which involves serious felony charges, was dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon due to questions about Smith's appointment. Smith's filing challenges this dismissal, arguing that the attorney general has the authority to appoint special counsels without Senate approval.

The outcome of this appeal could have broader implications for the Justice Department and the federal government's appointment process.