Lawfare Daily: Judge Cannon Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump
Jul 16, 2024
auto_awesome
Lawfare editors and legal experts discuss Judge Cannon's dismissal of Trump's classified documents' case due to Special Counsel Jack Smith's unconstitutional appointment. They analyze the Appointments Clause, potential appeal in the Eleventh Circuit, Justice Thomas's immunity concurrence, and implications for future government accountability and powers. Exclusive content and support for the Lawfare Podcast are highlighted.
Judge Cannon dismissed indictment against Trump due to unconstitutional appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Ruling questions constitutionality of prior special counsels and investigations, impacting legitimacy and appointment processes.
Implications of government appealing Judge Cannon's decision highlight potential remedies for appointment issues and future investigative efforts.
Deep dives
Judge Cannon's Decision on Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment
Judge Cannon made a ruling on whether special counsel Jack Smith was constitutionally appointed to bring an indictment against former President Trump. She dismissed the case, finding that Smith was not constitutionally appointed, basing her decision on the appointments clause and appropriations clause arguments.
Legal Context and Background of the Appointment Issue
The question of the constitutionality of special counsels was raised by concerns expressed by Donald Trump in 2018. This issue has sparked extensive scholarly debate and court engagement. Judge Cannon's ruling aligns with the argument that appointments must be authorized by Congress, specifically through a vesting statute.
Potential Implications for Prior Special Counsels and Investigations
Judge Cannon's ruling raises questions about the legitimacy of prior special counsels and their investigations. The concept of principal versus inferior officers underlines the appointment issue, with potential ramifications for previous investigations such as those led by Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski.
Options for Response and Future Legal Steps
In light of Judge Cannon's decision, the government may appeal the ruling, seeking potential remedies like ratification or Munsingwear vacatur. These legal concepts aim to address the appointment issue and its impact on ongoing and future investigative efforts. The resolution of this case could impact the dynamics of appointing and authorizing special counsels in the future.
Role of the Supreme Court and Possible Outcomes
While the government may pursue avenues to rectify the appointment issue without Supreme Court involvement, the prospect of the case reaching the highest court remains. The legal debate surrounding special counsels and appointments may influence future practices and decisions in similar contexts. The evolving legal landscape and potential Supreme Court review could shape the outcome and implications of this case.
On July 15, Judge Cannon granted former President Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith for the alleged mishandling of classified documents. She found that Smith was appointed as a special counsel in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
In a live podcast recording, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes talked to Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett, Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower, Senior Editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic, and Columbia Law professor Michel Paradis about Judge Cannon's decision, what Special Counsel Jack Smith may do next, how the Eleventh Circuit may rule on an appeal, how Justice Thomas’s immunity concurrence plays a role, and more.