On Monday, special counsel Jack Smith from the Justice Department urged a federal appeals court to revive the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, contending that his appointment was valid.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case, stating that Smith’s role was so significant that either Senate confirmation or explicit congressional approval was needed. Trump faces charges for taking numerous government documents with him after his presidency and keeping them at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

In his appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Smith maintained that two laws empower the attorney general to appoint special counsels. Over the years, courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently upheld similar appointments. Attorney General Merrick Garland also echoed this point during testimony in Congress.

Smith argued, “The district court’s opposing stance clashes with a consistent line of judicial rulings, including by the Supreme Court, affirming the Attorney General’s authority. It contradicts long-established appointment customs within the Justice Department and the federal government at large.”

Interestingly, Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, has issued several unusual rulings in favor of Trump throughout this case, leading to questions regarding her impartiality raised by higher courts.

Why Did Judge Cannon Dismiss the Charges Against Trump?

Trump was accused of keeping over 100 national defense records at his Mar-a-Lago residence after leaving office and of conspiring with two aides to conceal these documents from federal authorities.

His attorneys claimed that the case lacked validity due to Smith’s alleged unconstitutional appointment and funding.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to open the door for a challenge to Smith’s appointment when he expressed his views in a concurrent opinion regarding presidential immunity.

Cannon determined that Smith’s appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland was unconstitutional because it breached a provision requiring “Officers of the United States” to be appointed by the president with Senate confirmation. She stated that Smith must have undergone this process unless Congress approved a new law permitting his appointment.

While acknowledging a Supreme Court ruling related to former President Richard Nixon, which recognized the attorney general’s power to appoint subordinate officers like the Watergate special prosecutor, Cannon disregarded it as “non-binding and unpersuasive.”

Smith claimed that the ruling affirming the appointment was essential to settle a legal dispute in 1974 and as such, it constitutes a precedent binding on lower courts.

“The historical record of Attorney General appointments of special counsels validates the legality of the Special Counsel’s appointment,” Smith stated. “From before the establishment of the Department of Justice to the present day, Attorneys General have routinely appointed special and independent counsels for federal investigations, such as the prosecution of Jefferson Davis, corruption within federal agencies (including the Department of Justice), Watergate, and beyond.”

How Does Smith Support His Appointment?

To justify his appointment, Smith referenced two federal law sections. One grants the attorney general the authority to appoint attorneys “specially designated” to conduct civil or criminal cases. Similarly, another law permits the attorney general to appoint officials to “detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.”

Smith contended that Cannon incorrectly categorized previous appointments as “spotty” and “ad hoc.”

“The district court’s opposing perspective lacks substance,” stated Smith.