Appeals Court Hints It May Consider Constitutional Questions About Jack Smith’s Appointment

Loading

by Katelynn Richardson

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hinted Tuesday it may consider questions about special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment, along with other issues like the timing of Trump’s presidential immunity appeal.

The court asked parties in an order Tuesday to be prepared for questions about “discrete issues” raised in friend-of-the-court briefs when it considers Trump’s bid to dismiss his 2020 election case based on presidential immunity during oral arguments Jan. 9. Briefs filed include one challenging Smith’s appointment as unconstitutional and another arguing Trump cannot raise the immunity challenge until after a conviction and trial.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, along with law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, filed an amicus brief arguing that no statute or constitutional provision enables the attorney general to appoint “a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.”

“Not properly clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” they wrote. “Illegally appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court, or in the underlying prosecution, than Tom Brady, Warren Buffett, or Beyoncé.”

American Oversight filed a brief telling the court that Trump’s immunity appeal is premature. Under Supreme Court precedent, a criminal defendant cannot raise a claim to immunity before conviction unless that immunity “rests upon an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur,” the brief argues.

“The law is clear: Mr. Trump cannot appeal his immunity defenses until after he is tried and convicted,” Arnold & Porter partner Stanton Jones said in a statement. “He should not be allowed to use an improper appeal to delay the scheduled March trial.”

Sixteen former government officials and constitutional experts, including former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush, Brad Berenson, and Olivia Troye, former Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Special Advisor to Mike Pence, filed a brief arguing Trump’s position “cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text or history.”

“The immunity he seeks would severely impair the ability of the current President, in whom all executive powers are vested, see U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1, to take care that Congress’s laws proscribing obstruction of federal elections are faithfully executed,” they wrote. “And by asking the Judicial Branch to fashion a sweeping atextual immunity from whole cloth, he draws the Judiciary and the Executive into conflict.”

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I would like to seen Smith get the Boot and run clean out of Dodge City

Smith is a democrat party hack, and his appointment is politically motivated and outside the law. What ever Smith has done against Trump should be thrown out with prejudice.

The Special Prosecutor Statute expired in 1999…the DOJ has no statutory authority to appoint anyone without Congressional Legislation. As a private US citizen, the Appointment must be confirmed by the Senate of which was not what happened here.
Finally he failed to properly file his Oath of Office paperwork within the time frame required by law he did not do so until after he had charged Trump.

At this point, everything the Democrats try to do needs to be run by the Supreme Court. The law and Constitution means nothing to them. They are desperate and dangerous.

The sooner the Supreme Court makes a ruling on Trump’s eligibility for criminal prosecution the better.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg

comment image