This case, the first federal indictment against Trump, charged him with 40 counts related to allegedly mishandling classified documents removed from the White House after he left office in 2021. Judge Cannon dismissed the case following a motion from Trump’s defense ruling that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, thereby disqualifying him from prosecuting the case. In her 93-page decision, Judge Cannon asserted that under the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause, special counsels must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Smith, however, was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland — not President Joe Biden — and did not undergo Senate confirmation. “Is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution?” Cannon asks, before providing the answer. “After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no,” she wrote. “None of the statues cited as legal authority for the appointment gives the attorney general broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith.” Peter Carr, Smith’s spokesman, rebuffed Cannon and defended the special counsel’s appointment. "The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel,” Carr said. “The Justice Department has authorized the Special Counsel to appeal the court's order” to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Some legal experts believe that Cannon’s decision may be overturned. Greg Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University, told Newsweek that the basis for dismissing the case is “extremely weak” and that an appeal is justified. However, he noted that if the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices might side with Cannon. "There is no way to know for sure what the Supreme Court will say, but given the Supreme Court's extremely broad view of separation of powers in the Trump immunity case, I think there is a good chance that the Court will agree with Judge Cannon that the broad unsupervised powers given to Jack Smith are unlawful, and that the Special Counsel regulation is overbroad," he said. He added that the Court or an appeal court could seek to remedy the legal situation, rather than agree with Cannon’s dismissal. "The technical deficiency that has never before been identified by the Courts can be easily cured by appointing one of the U.S. Attorneys, who have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, to supervise Jack Smith in the case," Germain said.Special Counsel Jack Smith plans to appeal a ruling by Judge Eileen Cannon, who dismissed his classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.
