A Florida judge dismissed the case against former President Trump for the handling of classified documents, and some legal experts are calling it a “strongly reasoned” opinion that eliminates the “greatest legal threat” to the presumptive 2024 GOP just ahead of the Republican National Convention.
On Monday, Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a 93-page opinion dismissing the case on the grounds that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith to oversee the case was unconstitutional.
“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,” Cannon wrote.
Jonathan Turley, a defense attorney and law professor at George Washington University, told Fox News Monday that “of all of the cases that could be dismissed, this would be at the top of the list. This was the greatest threat. And for now, at least, it’s gone.”
SPECIAL COUNSEL IN TRUMP CASE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FORMER REAGAN AG SAYS
Trump had faced charges stemming from special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into his possession of classified materials at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. He pleaded not guilty to all 37 felony counts from Smith’s probe, including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements
John Malcolm, a former federal prosecutor and director of the Ed Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said that the case brought by Smith was the “most serious of the four criminal cases that were filed against him.”
A representative for Smith did not immediately return Fox News Digital’s request for comment and whether the Justice Department plans to appeal the decision.
JUDGE DISMISSES TRUMP’S FLORIDA CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE
John Yoo, a constitutional attorney, told Fox News Digital that the question of the constitutionality of special counsel has been debated for over 20 years. “We’ve been thinking and talking about this, these people who specialize in the Appointments Clause. The courts have generally been deferential to the Justice Department and how they want to appoint different lawyers.”
“But I think because of how aggressive Jack Smith has been, he prompted close scrutiny from the courts,” said Yoo.
Ed Meese, the former Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, filed a number of amicus briefs in Jack Smith’s cases against Trump arguing that Smith is “improperly appointed” and “has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos.”
While Garland cited as statutory authority for this appointment, Meese argued that “none of those statutes, nor any other statutory or constitutional provisions, remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.”
“Second, even if one overlooks the absence of statutory authority for the position, there is no statute specifically authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel,” the former AG wrote.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Meese said “We are very glad that the court moved to emphasize the importance of the Constitution in making sure that the special counsel’s appointment constitutional standards.”
“I congratulate Judge Cannon for her courage and constitutional ability,” he said.
Yoo said Cannon’s decision is “a very thorough, strongly reasoned, persuasive opinion [that] goes through the history of special counsels and all the statutes that are involved.”
“This decision is very well-reasoned and very well-written,” said John Shu, a constitutional attorney who served in both Bush administrations. “It’s not surprising because Congress intentionally allowed the independent counsel statute, which the Supreme Court found constitutional, to lapse, and they never replaced or amended it.”
“And thus Congress, through it’s inaction, just allowed the regulatory agency, in this case the DOJ, to go ahead and promulgate its own regulations in place of an actual enabling statute,” he explained.
LUNA’S BID TO FORCE GARLAND TO HAND OVER BIDEN-HUR TAPES FAILS IN HOUSE
Monday’s decision is the latest in a string of legal victories for the former president. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that he and future presidents are granted limited immunity from prosecution for official acts in office. That decision directly impacted Smith’s separate case against Trump related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
In a separate concurrence to the immunity decision, Justice Clarence Thomas looked to “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure” – the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel.
“In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President ‘is not above the law.’ But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. The Constitution provides for ‘an energetic executive,’ because such an Executive is ‘essential to… the security of liberty,'” Thomas wrote.
“Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law,” Thomas said, adding that “[t]hose questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”
Thomas explained that in this case, the attorney general “purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States.”
“But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices ‘by Law,’ the Constitution imposes an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure,” he said.
Should the Justice Department appeal Cannon’s decision, the Supreme Court could eventually be petitioned to weigh in on the matter.
“All of these cases seem to be collapsing of their own weight, and it’s because of lawfare,” said Jim Trusty, a former federal prosector and former lawyer for President Trump.
“This is the price of lawfare when you create different crimes and different investigative approaches, and you do it all in the name of self-righteousness that Donald Trump needs to be stopped, which is really the philosophy behind all these prosecutions.”
