Special Counsel Jack Smith of the U.S. Department of Justice has petitioned a federal court to revive the case against former President Donald Trump, who is accused of mishandling classified documents discovered at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. The plea follows the case’s dismissal in July by Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, who ruled that the use of special counsels in such investigations was unconstitutional.
In a motion filed on Monday, Smith contends that Judge Cannon’s decision strayed from established legal precedent and failed to adequately consider the historical context of special counsel appointments. Smith argues that the judge’s stance undermines the legal framework that has supported the appointment of special counsels for decades.
Trump’s defense team is expected to respond to Smith’s appeal by September 26. The former president had entered a not guilty plea to multiple felony charges, including the willful retention of national defense information, in the case that has now been dismissed. The 37-count indictment had accused Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive documents at his Florida estate and of misleading investigators, with allegations of attempting to obstruct the inquiry.
Trump faces these charges alongside his aide Walt Nauta and former employee Carlos de Oliveira, both of whom have also pleaded not guilty. Smith’s recent filing supports the legitimacy of the special counsel’s appointment, emphasizing that Congress has endorsed such practices through various legislative measures.
The document highlights that the special counsel, appointed by the Attorney General, is properly authorized and funded. Smith’s team asserts that the district court’s ruling contradicts binding Supreme Court precedents and misinterprets the statutes governing special counsel appointments. They reference the historic 1974 case against former President Richard Nixon, arguing that it confirms the Attorney General’s authority to appoint special counsels.
“The Nixon case decisively counters the defendants’ objections to the Special Counsel’s appointment, aligning with the findings of other courts,” the filing states. “Congress has granted the Attorney General broad authority to structure the Department of Justice to fulfill its legal responsibilities,” Smith’s team adds.
The case forms part of a broader array of legal challenges facing Trump, who is also involved in three other criminal trials. Given the current legal and political landscape, it is unlikely that the document case will reach trial before the presidential election in November. Should Trump win the presidency, analysts predict he might direct the Justice Department to dismiss the charges against him.
Special counsels, equipped with powers similar to those of U.S. attorneys, can issue subpoenas and pursue criminal charges independently. They are tasked with conducting unbiased investigations and can prosecute offenses such as perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness intimidation.
In addition to Trump’s case, Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, is under investigation by a special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. This probe focuses on allegations of gun and tax-related crimes.
Garland appointed Smith in 2022 to oversee two significant federal investigations involving Trump: the classified documents case and a separate inquiry into Trump’s alleged attempts to interfere with the 2020 election results. The outcomes of both investigations remain uncertain, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity.