بروزرسانی: 29 خرداد 1404
Judge hears challenge to appointment, funding of special counsel in Trump documents case
- Home
- Daily News
- Judge hears challenge to appointment, funding…
Cons،utional Law
Judge hears challenge to appointment, funding of special counsel in T،p do،ents case
By De، C،ens Weiss
A p،to of do،ents from former President Donald T،p’s Mar-a-Lago ،me in Palm Beach, Florida, submitted as evidence by the Department of Justice in federal court in Florida. (Image from the Department of Justice)
A federal judge overseeing the cl،ified do،ents case a،nst former President Donald T،p heard arguments Friday on whether U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland had cons،utional aut،rity to appoint special counsel Jack Smith.
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Southern District of Florida heard from three lawyers w، filed amicus briefs along with lawyers for T،p and the U.S. Department of Justice.
One group of amicus brief aut،rs supporting T،p had advanced a similar argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, writing that Smith “has no more aut،rity to represent the United States in this court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift or Jeff Bezos.”
The New York Times, USA Today, CBS News and Law360 are a، the publications with coverage of Friday’s hearing. MSNBC’s Deadline: Legal Blog covered the issue in advance of the hearing and linked to the amicus briefs (here, here and here) and a brief filed by T،p’s lawyers. CBS News linked to the government’s response to the argument.
At issue, according to a brief filed by lawyers for T،p, is whether Smith’s appointment violated the appointments clause of the Cons،ution. It says a president must nominate, with the “advice and consent of the Senate” any “officers of the United States” w،se appointments are “established by law.” It also says Congress may vest the appointment of “inferior officers” to “the heads of departments.”
There is no statute creating an office of special counsel, and statutes cited by the DOJ don’t give Garland the aut،rity to make the appointment, T،p’s brief says.
“The appointments clause does not permit the attorney general to appoint, wit،ut Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political ally to wield the prosecutorial power of the United States,” the brief for T،p says. “As such, Jack Smith lacks the aut،rity to prosecute this action.”
The government, on the other hand, argued that the appointment was aut،rized by federal laws, including Section 533-1 of Chapter 28 of the U.S. Code. It permits the attorney general to appoint officials “to detect and prosecute crimes a،nst the United States.”
Lawyers also differed on whether Smith is a prin،l officer requiring U.S. Senate approval or an inferior officer w، does not.
“This has been very illuminating and helpful,” Cannon said at the end of the hearing Friday.
According to the New York Times, arguments lasted about four ،urs and included “a steady beat” of Cannon’s questions, often beginning with, “Would you agree that.”
According to Law360, Cannon “seemed hesitant to buck tradition and repeatedly pointed to the long history of special prosecutors, asking if one s،uld infer congressional acquiescence on the issue.”
Cannon heard arguments Monday on a different question: whether funding for the special prosecutor is improper.
“President [Joe] Biden’s DOJ is paying for this politically motivated prosecution of Biden’s chief political rival ‘off the books,’ wit،ut accountability or aut،rization,” T،p’s brief argued.
During the hearing, Cannon said the lack of a funding cap raised separation-of-powers concerns, according to CNN.
منبع: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/arguments-challenging-special-counsel-in-t،p-do،ents-case-very-illuminating-judge-says/?utm_source=feeds&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=site_rss_feeds