A Florida judge has dismissed the federal case against former President Donald Trump concerning his handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, appointed to the bench by Trump in 2020, ruled that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This decision marks a significant legal victory for Trump, who has faced numerous criminal charges.
Trump was charged with 37 felony counts, including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and making false statements. These charges resulted from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s possession of classified materials. Trump consistently pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
In her ruling, Judge Cannon stated, “Former President Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith is GRANTED as per this Order.” She concluded that Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause, requiring the President to appoint principal officers with the Senate’s consent.
After the ruling, Trump shared his satisfaction in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, stating, “I am delighted that a judge showed the courage and wisdom to make this decision. It has far-reaching implications, not just for this case but for others as well.”
At the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Trump highlighted the ruling’s significance, stating, “The special counsel worked with everyone to try to bring me down. This is a significant development. It only makes this convention more positive. This will be an incredible week.”
The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the President can appoint ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, Supreme Court judges, and other officers with the Senate’s advice and consent. However, the clause allows Congress to vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, the courts, or heads of departments. Judge Cannon found that Smith’s appointment bypassed this constitutional requirement.
“After thoroughly examining the foundational challenges presented in the Motion, the Court has determined that Special Counsel Smith’s prosecution violates two fundamental aspects of our constitutional framework: Congress’s role in appointing constitutional officers and Congress’s authority to authorize expenditures by law,” Cannon wrote.
The ruling has sparked significant debate and controversy. Legal experts and the Justice Department have vigorously contested the Appointments Clause argument. The Department of Justice argued that attorneys general have historically appointed special counsels without congressional approval. However, Judge Cannon remained unconvinced.
Cannon’s ruling noted, “The Framers assigned Congress a crucial role in appointing principal and inferior officers. This responsibility cannot be taken over by the Executive Branch or distributed elsewhere—regardless of the specific case or urgent national circumstances.”
Trump’s lawyer praised the judge’s decision, saying it restored the rule of law and held Jack Smith accountable under the Constitution. The ruling has added a layer of complexity to the legal battles Trump faces as he prepares for the Republican nomination.
The Justice Department plans to appeal the decision. A spokesperson stated, “The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel.” The appeal is expected to go to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
The dismissal of this case marks a critical juncture in Trump’s ongoing legal challenges. It raises questions about the constitutionality of special counsel appointments and the future of other cases involving special counsels. As the Justice Department prepares for an appeal, the legal and political ramifications of this ruling will continue to unfold.