Trump's Legal Team Argues for Dismissal of Election Case, Citing Unconstitutionality of Special Council Appointment

On October 24, former President Donald Trump's legal team submitted a new filing, arguing that the superseding indictment by Special Counsel Jack Smith should be dismissed on the grounds of his appointment being unconstitutional.

Unlawful and Unconstitutional Actions

In a filing to D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over Trump's election interference case, his attorneys stated that all actions taken by Smith since his appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland were both unlawful and unconstitutional. This includes Smith's alleged violation of the Appropriations Clause by using an unapplicable appropriation to draw over $20 million from taxpayers.

Motion for Dismissal

The filing is a motion requesting Judge Chutkan to permit Trump to submit a further motion to dismiss based on the legality of Smith's appointment. Trump is not only seeking dismissal of the superseding indictment but also an injunction to prevent Smith from "spending additional public funds" while violating the Constitution.

Previous Attempts to Weaken Prosecution

This is the latest move by Trump to secure rulings that would significantly weaken or terminate Smith's prosecution, which resumed after a lengthy delay while the Supreme Court considered Trump's appeal on presidential immunity.

Case Dismissal Based on Immunity and Obstruction Statute

Trump is attempting to dismiss the case based on the Supreme Court's ruling that presidents possess some immunity, as well as its decision in Fischer v. United States in June. This decision limited Smith's use of an obstruction statute against January 6 defendants.

Repetition of Arguments

Trump's most recent filing mirrors arguments made by Florida Judge Aileen Cannon, who dismissed Smith's classified documents case against Trump in Florida. Both Trump and Cannon referred to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whose concurring opinion in the immunity decision questioned the legitimacy of Smith's appointment.

Appeal and Potential Supreme Court Involvement

This case is now headed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, where Smith is seeking an appeal of Cannon's decision. If the 11th Circuit and Chutkan return differing opinions on this matter, it could lead to a circuit split that reaches the Supreme Court.

Conflicting Opinions

Judge Chutkan has already indicated that she would reject the type of arguments that Cannon used in dismissing the classified documents case. During a status conference on September 5, she stated that she didn’t find Cannon’s opinion “particularly persuasive.”

Major Questions Doctrine

Cannon's ruling conflicts with a 2019 judgment by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld former special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment. Trump’s attorneys argued that this 2019 decision wasn’t binding for Chutkan, as it was decided before the Supreme Court issued multiple decisions attempting to limit agency power through a principle known as the “major questions doctrine.”

Disputes Over Appointment Legality

Smith disputed Cannon’s ruling on statutory grounds and also disagreed with her interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Nixon. This case revolved around former President Richard Nixon’s attempt to resist a subpoena from special prosecutor Leon Jaworski. In that case, the court’s majority defended the special prosecutor’s appointment.

Bottom Line

The legal battle surrounding the constitutionality of Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and his subsequent actions continues to unfold. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future special counsel appointments and the interpretation of constitutional law. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you believe Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, or do you think Trump's attorneys are stretching the interpretation of the law? Share your thoughts and this article with your friends. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.