Donald Trump’s criminal case over allegations of mishandling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club was dismissed on Monday. The judge, Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump, ruled that the special counsel, Jack Smith, was improperly appointed because he wasn’t named by the president or confirmed by the Senate, as required by the constitution.
Cannon’s decision centered on the lack of statutory authority for Smith’s appointment, arguing that previous court precedents, including those from the Nixon era, did not bind her decision.
“Because Special Counsel Smith’s exercise of prosecutorial power has not been authorized by law, the court sees no way forward aside from dismissal of the superseding indictment,” Cannon wrote.
READ MORE: Donald Trump Assassination Attempt: What It Means For The US Elections?
The ruling disregarded past decisions that upheld the use of special prosecutors, going back to Watergate, and removed a significant legal challenge to Trump on the eve of the Republican national convention, where he is expected to accept the GOP nomination for president.
The case is likely to be appealed to the US court of appeals for the 11th circuit, and the outcome there could be as pivotal as the initial ruling. If overturned, the case could be reassigned to a different federal judge in Florida, potentially revitalizing the legal proceedings.
Trump, who had pleaded not guilty, was accused of unlawfully retaining national security documents and obstructing efforts to retrieve them, including defying a grand jury subpoena. The core of the dispute was whether the special counsel position had statutory basis under the constitution, affecting the validity of Smith’s actions as a prosecutor.
Cannon’s ruling aligned with Trump’s argument that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, concluding that all actions stemming from this appointment, including seeking the indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power. Prosecutors had argued their funding through the justice department’s budget was legitimate under the appointments clause, but Cannon’s ruling rejected this argument, finding that without a valid appointment, the use of funds was unjustified.
“Both sides agree that ‘other law,’ for present purposes, is the collection of statutes cited in the Appointment Order. For all of the reasons the Court found no statutory authority for the appointment, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation has unlawfully drawn funds,” Cannon wrote.
ALSO READ: Family of Trump Rally Shooter Thomas Crooks Reacts: ‘What the Hell is Going On?’
