The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals responded to Jack Smith’s attempt to appeal Judge Cannon’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case against President Trump. According to Politico, the appeals court issued a schedule requiring Trump and Jack Smith to file briefs through October.
Jack Smith’s chances of reviving the case before the election appear slim, as the legal briefs need to be filed and oral arguments heard. Politico reported:
“Special counsel Jack Smith’s bid to revive the classified documents case against Donald Trump appears unlikely to be resolved or even argued in court before Election Day.
Smith is appealing U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision last week to dismiss the case, in which the former president is charged with hoarding national security secrets at Mar-a-Lago after he left office. The federal court that will hear his appeal — the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — laid out a schedule Thursday that requires Smith and Trump to file legal briefs through mid-October. After all the briefs are in, the court will likely hear oral arguments, with a decision weeks or potentially months after that.”
On Wednesday, Special Counsel Jack Smith appealed Judge Cannon’s decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Earlier, Judge Aileen Cannon had dismissed Jack Smith’s classified documents case on grounds of unlawful appointment and funding of the special counsel. This dismissal affected the charges against Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.
Jack Smith had indicted Trump on 37 federal counts in Miami in June 2023 for storing presidential records at Mar-a-Lago, which was protected by Secret Service agents. Trump faced 31 counts under the Espionage Act for willful retention of national defense information and six other process crimes from conversations with his lawyer.
Judge Cannon dismissed the case due to unconstitutional elements related to the appointment by US Attorney Merrick Garland and the unlimited funding given to Jack Smith without Congress’s approval. In her order, Cannon wrote:
“Upon careful study of the foundational challenges raised in the Motion, the Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s Smith’s prosecution of this action breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme—the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers, and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law.”
She further stated, “Both the Appointments and Appropriations challenges as framed in the Motion raise the following threshold question: is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no.”
In a 93-page filing, Judge Cannon concluded, “The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers. The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers.”
