Former U.S. President Donald Trump found himself at the center of legal proceedings once again as special counsel Jack Smith urged a federal appeals court to reverse a lower court's decision to dismiss the criminal case charging Trump with mishandling classified documents. The case was initially thrown out by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who argued that Smith's appointment violated the U.S. Constitution.
In a court brief filed on Monday, Smith argued that Cannon's ruling went against established legal precedent and failed to consider the history of special counsel appointments. He emphasized that the U.S. attorney general has the authority to appoint special counsels and called for the case to be remanded to the U.S. District Court in southern Florida.
Despite the ongoing legal battle, Trump's lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Smith's brief. If the appeals court grants Smith's request to reverse Cannon's decision, it is unlikely that Trump will face trial before the upcoming presidential election.
The charges against Trump stemmed from allegations that he illegally retained classified records at his Mar-a-Lago resort home after leaving the White House and attempted to obstruct efforts to retrieve them. Smith's brief referenced the Supreme Court's 1974 decision in United States v. Nixon, which established the attorney general's authority to appoint special prosecutors.
Overall, the legal battle surrounding Trump's classified document charges highlights the complexities of the U.S. legal system and the ongoing debate over the appointment of special counsels. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for future appointments within the executive branch, as Smith argued that Cannon's ruling could call into question the validity of numerous appointments.