The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has responded to Jack Smith’s request to appeal Judge Cannon’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case against President Trump.
According to Politico, the appeals court provided a timetable for Trump and Jack Smith to submit briefs by October.
Jack Smith’s chance of reviving the case before the election won’t happen until all legal briefs are filed and the court hears oral arguments.
Political coverage:
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s effort to reopen the classified documents case against Donald Trump appears unlikely to be resolved before Election Day or even argued in court.
Smith is appealing U.S. District Judge Erin Cannon’s decision last week to dismiss the case in which the former president was accused of hoarding national security secrets at Mar-a-Lago after leaving office. The federal court that will hear his appeal — the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — on Thursday set a timetable for Smith and Trump to file legal briefs by mid-October.
After all briefs are filed, the court may hear oral arguments and make a decision weeks or months later.
Special prosecutor Jack Smith on Wednesday appealed Judge Cannon’s decision to refer the confidential documents case to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Erin Cannon dismissed Jack Smith’s confidential documents case on Monday, arguing the special prosecutor’s appointment and funding was illegal.
All charges against Trump and his co-defendants Walter Nota and Carlos de Oliveira were dropped.
In June 2023, Jack Smith indicted Trump in Miami on 37 federal counts over his legal storage of presidential records at Mar-a-Lago, which was protected by Secret Service agents.
Trump was charged under the Espionage Act with 31 counts of knowingly withholding national defense information, as well as six other crimes stemming from his conversations with lawyers.
Judge Cannon dismissed the entire case: “The clerk is directed to close the case,” Cannon wrote.
Cannon dismissed Jack Smith’s case based on two unconstitutional factors: the appointment of U.S. Attorney Merrick Garland and the unlimited funding provided to Jack Smith — both of which were not approved by Congress.
“After carefully examining the basic challenges raised in the motion, the Court is convinced that Special Counsel Smith’s prosecution of this action violates two structural cornerstones of our constitutional project – Congress’s role in appointing constitutional officers and Congress’s role under the law Authorize expenditures,” Cannon wrote in her order.
“Both the appointment and appropriation challenges raised in the motion raise the following threshold question: Is there a statute in the United States Code authorizing the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution?” Judge Cannon wrote. “After taking a closer look at this far-reaching question, the answer is no.”
“The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is an important constitutional limitation arising from the separation of powers that gives Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of granting appointments to inferior officials,” the justices filed in 93-page.
“The position of special counsel effectively usurps this important legislative authority, transferring it to department heads and, in the process, threatening the structural freedoms inherent in the separation of powers,” Cannon wrote.
