Federal Judge Aileen Cannon has expanded a pivotal hearing to scrutinize the legality of special counsel Jack Smith's appointment in the classified documents case involving former President Trump.

The controversy escalated when a number of legal scholars began to raise questions about whether the appointment itself was constitutional, and the upcoming proceeding is set to explore this issue in greater depth, as Fox News reports.

Legal Proceedings Set a New Timeline

As the court delves into this legal dilemma, a series of deadlines have been established. Filings from the parties are due by June 10 and 17, leading up to a critical non-evidentiary hearing on June 21, which will concentrate on the alleged "unlawful appointment and funding of special counsel."

During the June 21 hearing, the court will hear from Trump's defense attorneys, federal prosecutors, and amici. They will argue the legality of Smith's role, something which could prove pivotal with regard to the continuation of the case.

Carrying the arguments for former Attorney General Ed Meese, who filed an amicus brief against Smith's appointment, will be Gene Schaerr, Josh Blackman, and Matthew Seligman.

Meese's strong stance in an amicus brief he previously submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court characterizes Smith's appointment as unconstitutional, likening him to a "modern example of the naked emperor." His argument highlights a breach of the Appointments Clause which he claims renders Smith's role invalid.

Garland Defends Special Counsel Appointment

In defense of his decision to appoint Smith, Attorney General Merrick Garland cited longstanding regulations and precedents. During a Capitol Hill hearing, Garland emphasized the legitimacy of appointing a special counsel, a practice utilized for over 30 years across different administrations.

"There are regulations under which the attorney general can appoint a special counsel. They have been in effect for 30 years, maybe longer, under both parties," Garland explained, aiming to reinforce the foundation of Smith's appointment.

Furthermore, Garland referenced a specific statute that supports his ability to appoint a special counsel, indicating that this matter had been previously adjudicated and upheld.

Upcoming Court Dates and Further Hearings

Following the initial set of hearings, the court has scheduled additional sessions from June 24 to 26. A flurry of legal activity will continue into early July, with deadlines for special counsel disclosures and a July 19 deadline for the defendants' speedy trial report.

Another significant date for Trump is July 11, when he faces sentencing in a separate Manhattan case where he was found guilty on all counts.

A status conference in the documents case on July 22 will also keep the legal teams busy through the summer.

Broad Implications of the Classified Documents Case

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all 37 felony counts stemming from Smith's investigation, which includes charges related to retaining national defense information, obstructing justice, and making false statements.

Three additional charges were recently added in a superseding indictment.

Documents seized during the FBI’s raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate revealed the operation named "Plasmic Echo." According to an FBI document dated March 30, 2022, Garland approved the elevation of this investigation to a full probe.

Further investigations by House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan are exploring whether there was any tampering with the documents post-seizure, adding another layer of complexity to the case.

Conclusion: An Ongoing Legal Battle with National Impact

The postponed trials, the legal scrutiny of special counsel appointments, and the upcoming Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity are all elements that underscore the ongoing legal battle involving former President Trump.

Each development has the potential to influence not only individual cases but also broader legal precedents and the political landscape in the United States.