On Monday, July 15, federal judge Aileen Cannon in the United States rejected the case against former President Trump, ruling that the appointment of special prosecutor Jack Smith was unconstitutional and lacked authority to bring the lawsuit. This ruling marked a significant victory for Trump and was the first of the four criminal cases he faced to be completely dismissed.
In her ruling, Cannon stated that the appointment of special prosecutor Smith violated the Appointment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. She noted that the executive branch has been increasingly appointing “supervisory” special prosecutors without much judicial review, a practice she found to be in violation of the Constitution.
The dismissal of the indictment also rejected the case against co-defendants Walter Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, who were charged along with their employer, former President Trump. Prosecutors plan to appeal the decision.
The Appointment Clause specifies that officials must be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. The ruling distinguished between “principal” officers and “inferior” officers, pointing out that if Congress passed legislation, department heads could appoint inferior officers.
Judge Cannon wrote that this is a “critical constitutional limitation stemming from the separation of powers” and that Smith’s appointment “effectively usurped this important legislative power.”
Trump’s lawyers questioned the legal basis for Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, appointing Smith to lead the investigation into Trump in 2022. They argued that the appointment violated the U.S. Constitution because Smith’s office was not established by Congress and did not receive Senate approval. The defense also argued that Smith wielded powers of a principal officer without undergoing such an appointment process.
However, lawyers from Smith’s office objected to Trump’s lawyers’ arguments, stating that using special prosecutors for politically sensitive investigations is a well-established practice. They also argued that Smith is an inferior officer and the Attorney General has the statutory power to appoint special prosecutors.
Judge Cannon agreed with the prosecutor’s viewpoint that the special prosecutor is an “inferior officer,” but she found that there is no statutory authority allowing the head of the Department of Justice to appoint such inferior officers.
“Is there a statute in the U.S. Code authorizing the appointment of special prosecutor Smith to bring this lawsuit? After careful consideration of this significant question, the answer is negative,” the judge wrote.
“The dismissal of this lawsuit is the only appropriate remedy to address the violation of the Appointment Clause,” the judge’s ruling stated.
Additionally, on July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court handed former President Trump a significant immunity victory, largely protecting him from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his presidency.
By a 6-3 vote, the nine justices determined that the president has absolute immunity for actions within his core responsibilities and presumed immunity for all other official actions.
This report is based on news from Da Ji Yuan and has been contributed to by Catherine Yang.