Trump's Indictment Dismissed: Unconstitutional Appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith

Contents

Judge Aileen M. Cannon Cites Violations of Key Constitutional Clauses in Landmark Ruling Violation of the Appropriations Clause

Judge Aileen M. Cannon Cites Violations of Key Constitutional Clauses in Landmark Ruling

In a significant legal development, a motion to dismiss the classified documents indictment against former President Donald Trump has been granted. The ruling, issued by United States District Judge Aileen M. Cannon and detailed in Order [ECF No. 326], hinges on the unconstitutional appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Judge Cannon’s decision asserts that Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. This clause outlines the procedure for appointing officers of the United States, which the court found was not adhered to in Smith’s case.

Violation of the Appropriations Clause

Additionally, the court determined that Special Counsel Smith’s utilization of a permanent indefinite appropriation violated the Appropriations Clause found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution. However, the court did not delve into the appropriate remedy for this funding violation due to the primary dismissal being based on the Appointments Clause infraction.

In her order, Judge Cannon emphasized the importance of constitutional safeguards, stating, “The Appointments Clause is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.” She further noted that the Appropriations Clause carefully separates Congressional control of the “purse” from Executive control of the “sword,” quoting Alexander Hamilton from The Federalist No. 78. Judge Cannon warned of the serious consequences of relaxing these critical provisions, both in this case and beyond, echoing Justice Frankfurter’s caution in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer about the gradual accumulation of unchecked power.

The dismissal of the superseding indictment against Trump is limited to this specific proceeding. This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the legal proceedings surrounding former President Trump, potentially setting a precedent for future cases involving the appointment and funding of special counsels.

Stay tuned to Thrive News for further updates on this developing story.