Special counsel Jack Smith asked a federal appeals court Monday to reinstate the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump after it was dismissed by a judge last month.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon threw out the case, one of four prosecutions of Trump, after concluding that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional.
Smith’s team then appealed to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with prosecutors saying in their appeal brief that Cannon’s decision is “at odds with widespread and longstanding appointment practices in the Department of Justice and across the government.”
The appeal is the latest development in a prosecution that many legal experts consider a straightforward criminal case but has been derailed by delays, months of hearings before Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge, and ultimately a dismissal order that brought the proceedings to at least a temporary halt.
It’s unclear how long it will take for the appeals court to decide the matter, but even if it overturns Cannon’s dismissal and revives the prosecution, there’s no chance of a trial before the November presidential election and Trump, if elected, could appoint an attorney general who would dismiss the case.
The case includes dozens of felony charges that Trump illegally retained classified documents from his presidency at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., and obstructed the government’s efforts to get them back. He has pleaded not guilty.
Smith was appointed special counsel in November 2022 by Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland to investigate Trump’s handling of the documents as well as his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Both investigations resulted in criminal charges, though the election subversion prosecution faces an uncertain future following a U.S. Supreme Court decision last month that conferred broad immunity on Trump and narrowed the scope of the case.
Defense lawyers in the classified documents case had argued that Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, a motion that prompted Cannon to hold a multiday hearing in June. The judge sided with the defense, saying no specific statute permitted Garland’s appointment of Smith and saying Smith had been unlawfully appointed because he had not been named to the position by the president or confirmed by the Senate.
Smith’s team is expected to point out that special counsel appointments have been repeatedly upheld by judges in multiple cases, and that an attorney general’s ability to name a special counsel is well established.
Tucker writes for the Associated Press.