Judge Aileen Cannon Closes Trump Mar-a-Lago Classified Documents Case [Preview]
Jul 15, 2024
auto_awesome
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Trump Mar-a-Lago case ruling Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel unconstitutional. This decision may head to the Supreme Court. Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Matthew Seligman who argued for special counsel's constitutionality. Unique insights on the legal implications of special counsel appointments and unusual oral arguments in court.
Judge Cannon ruled the appointment of special counsel for Trump trial unconstitutional.
Amicus participation in oral arguments signaled a departure from traditional legal procedures.
Deep dives
Appointment of Special Counsel for Trump's Prosecution
Jack Smith was appointed as a special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate and potentially prosecute former President Trump for two specific incidents related to the events leading to January 6th and the potential unlawful retention of classified documents. The special counsel's appointment provided a degree of independence from political influences, as it allowed someone outside the ordinary chain of command to make prosecution decisions. However, Judge Cannon declared that the appointment was unlawful based on the appointments clause, questioning the constitutionality of the special counsel.
Settlement on Special Counsel Appointments
The discussion delved into the historical context and legal framework surrounding the appointment of special counsels. The appointments clause distinguishes between principal and inferior officers, requiring specific appointment procedures. Previous cases like United States v. Nixon affirmed the Attorney General's authority to appoint a special counsel, underscoring the settled nature of this process. However, Judge Cannon's ruling challenged this long-held understanding by asserting that the appointment of Jack Smith was invalid.
Unusual Legal Proceedings and Amici Participation
The podcast highlighted the unconventional legal proceedings in the case, emphasizing the unexpected involvement of amici in oral arguments before Judge Cannon. This departure from traditional practices, where amici typically submit written briefs, indicated a novel approach to the legal process. The unique nature of amicus participation raised questions about the standard procedures and precedent in such proceedings, given the rarity of oral arguments involving non-governmental amici in legal cases. The podcast expressed the intrigue and complexity of these developments in the legal realm, shedding light on the atypical nature of the court proceedings.
The judge overseeing the stolen classified documents case at former President Trump’s Mar-A-Lago Club has dismissed the case, ruling that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. This decision will likely be appealed. It’s a big swing, on a Trump trial question that’s very possibly heading on a fast track up to the United States Supreme Court. That sinking feeling is becoming pretty familiar, huh? In a special episode of Amicus for our Slate Plus subscribers, Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Matthew Seligman who had argued for the constitutionality of the special counsel last month in Judge Cannon’s courtroom in Florida.
This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to the full version now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you’ll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.