A legal brief from the team of former Attorney General Ed Meese, including two leading constitutional scholars, advocates for the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the plea against former President Donald Trump presented by Jack Smith, as they claim his role as special counsel is ungrounded in the Constitution.
The legal document communicates that Smith’s plea for certiorari to the Supreme Court on behalf of the United States is unlawful as it comes from a position of unvalidated authority. The cited reason is that Congress has not approved his current role, making his appointment a breach of the ‘Appointments Clause’ as laid out in the Constitution. It’s been alleged, in the briefing, that Attorney General Merrick Garland made a misguided appointment of Smith to an undefined office beyond his authority, as indicated by Newsweek.
In contention is that the creation of federal roles, such as the one Smith currently presides, lies wholly within Congressional purview, a principle advocated by Meese, Steven Calabresi, a lead at the Federalist Society, and Gary Lawson, a highly regarded constitutional law professor. They maintain that, excluding the roles of President and Vice President which are constitutionally established, Congress holds the exclusive privilege to establish further positions, as outlined in the Constitution’s provision that these roles must be ‘established by law.’ Legislation to authorize a role akin to ‘independent counsel’ was in the past ratified by Congress, but this law was retired in 1999.
The legal team argues that Garland doesn’t possess the jurisdiction to delegate duties to a subordinate for tasks unauthorized by Congress. The designation ‘officer’ is essential for one to hold this level of authority. The Department of Justice was formed by Congress conferring particular powers onto it through legislation. However, it didn’t authorize an appointment to an office possessing the same stance of authority as a U.S. Attorney, but Garland has conferred this very authority onto Smith.
The brief further explains that, ‘Even in a scenario where one could argue that current laws allow the appointment of self-standing special counsels with full U.S. Attorney powers, Smith hasn’t been properly appointed to such an ‘office.” They posit that even if Congress were to authorize the appointment of special counsels, any individual granted such powers should be subject to Presidential nomination and Senate approval.
Moreover, the brief makes an argument that Smith’s authority is parallel to that of a U.S. attorney, deeming Smith a ‘principal officer’ as per the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. In turn, this classification means that his nomination by the President must be followed by affirmation by a Senate majority. They paint a vivid comparison that, being improperly appointed, he holds no more authority to represent America in the Supreme Court than notable figures like Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos.
While they primarily intend to argue against the Supreme Court considering Smith’s petition to escalate the case to the highest court, their argument, if accepted, could result in lower federal courts discarding all of Smith’s legal cases, including those with charges pending against Trump. Former Attorney General Ed Meese served under President Ronald Reagan, with the provision of independent counsel by Congress being of significant importance during his tenure.
Late last week, former President Trump drew significant media attention with the focus on a statement made by Smith in a recent court filing. Trump alleged that Smith, despite prior denials, revealed in a court submission that he was under the instruction of current President Joe Biden.
‘Despite denials from Joe Biden and his team claiming no involvement with Jack Smith’s case against me, Smith’s recent court filing admits to being under the direction of the Attorney General, and that direction includes input from Biden.’ was written in a Trump statement.
Continuing, Trump said, ‘Smith has confessed what the citizens of this country have always suspected, that the Biden administration is orchestrating his case against me. Even though he denies it, AG Merrick Garland executes the orders from his superior to prosecute me and meddle with the 2024 elections.’
Trump’s remarks appear to be prompted by a filing in a different lawsuit from Smith accusing the former President of unethically stockpiling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after his White House tenure and resisting government requests to return them, according to a recent submission.
Trump continues to refute any misconduct in this case. As he gears up for a potential return to the White House in the upcoming election, Trump is actively combatting four separate investigations, two of which were initiated by Smith.
The ongoing legal battle, beset with Constitution-related debates and remarks from high-profile figures, continues to attract considerable attention and adds another chapter in the ongoing tension between Trump and key members of the current administration.
While maintaining the integrity of the Constitution is a paramount concern, these experts are using their constitutional knowledge to challenge the authority of the special counsel and by extension, the current administration. Their argument raises a serious question on the constitutional virtues of the current legal process.
The legal brief and the arguments outlined within serve as a call to respect the Constitution in the realm of legal appointments. They opine that the Constitution’s appointments clause outlines clear guidelines, which they argue have been breached in this case.
If this legal contention succeeds, it could set a significant precedent for the future. Not only would it affect the specific case of Trump, but it would have broader implications for the way authority and appointments are handled on a constitutional level.
In conclusion, this incident exemplifies the importance of constitutional adherence in justice affairs. As the legal odyssey between Trump and the current administration continues, the fulcrum of the matter rests upon constitutional scrutiny and the impacts it will have on the larger political landscape.
