Jack Smith appeals judge's decision to throw out Trump classified documents case

Special counsel Jack Smith told an appeals court Monday that U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon's decision to dismiss Donald Trump's classified-documents case should be reversed, arguing that Attorney General Merrick Garland had clear authority to appoint Smith to lead the prosecution.Smith wrote that Cannon ignored decades of precedent when she issued her stunning decision to toss out the entire indictment, concluding that Smith was wrongfully appointed and wielded too much power for someone who was not in a Senate-confirmed position.The ruling halted what was considered by many lawyers to be the strongest criminal case against the former president as he again seeks the White House. Two other criminal indictments against Trump are also stalled. The former president was convicted in May in a fourth criminal case for falsifying business records related to hush money payments in 2016. He is scheduled for sentencing next month, though his lawyers have asked for a delay.For decades, Smith argued in Monday's court filing, attorneys general have appointed special counsels, and court after court has upheld those appointments as valid.Cannon's decision "conflicts with an otherwise unbroken course of decisions, including by the Supreme Court … and it is at odds with widespread and long-standing appointment practices in the Department of Justice and across the government," Smith wrote in the appeal.The judge's July 15 ruling was a shocking rebuke to a historic set of charges, in which the former president was accused of repeatedly breaking the law by allegedly stashing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.Smith quickly vowed to appeal. He filed his legal argument one day before the Tuesday deadline set by the federal appeals court in Atlanta - the first step in a lengthy process that the government must take in its quest to resurrect the case.If Trump wins the 2024 election and again becomes president, he could pressure his Justice Department to drop the appeals effort. Continuing would mean pitting his Justice Department lawyers against his personal defense attorneys in court.But if Trump loses, the appeals process probably would go forward under the next administration, and the question of whether Smith was lawfully appointed could be decided by the Supreme Court. If the justices conclude that Cannon is wrong and that Smith was lawfully appointed, Smith could continue with his prosecution of Trump in Florida.Cannon's decision is only binding in the South Florida district in which she serves. It does not affect Smith's separate prosecution of Trump in D.C. on election interference charges. That case has been on hold since last year and may be significantly narrowed by a Supreme Court decision that former presidents have broad criminal immunity for official actions. A hearing is scheduled next week to start the process of a trial judge weighing what parts of the indictment can move forward.In her ruling on the classified-documents case, Cannon drew distinctions between appointments of independent counsels - a predecessor to what is now known as a special counsel - and Garland's appointment of Smith under the latter title.But Smith largely dismissed that concern as superficial and said the mechanism that has allowed for independent-counsel-type appointments in the past is largely the same as in the modern era.He argued that from the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, to the only American president to resign under threat of impeachment, Richard M. Nixon, U.S. courts have allowed for special or independent prosecutors."The district court erroneously regarded this history as 'spotty' or 'ad hoc,' giving undue emphasis to superficial differences in the appointments and roles of certain special and independent counsels," the prosecutor wrote.The court filing argues that the implications of Cannon's decision could extend far beyond special counsel appointments to many other types of government officials."The district court's rationale could jeopardize the longstanding operation of the Justice Department and call into question hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch," Smith wrote.