Special Counsel Appeals Ruling in Trump Classified Documents Case
U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith has requested a federal appeals court to reinstate the criminal case against Donald Trump for retaining classified documents. A lower court previously dismissed the case, citing unlawful appointment. Smith argues the Attorney General holds the authority for such appointments.
U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked a federal appeals court to revive the criminal case accusing Donald Trump of retaining classified documents after a lower court dismissed the indictment in July, according to a court filing.
Smith and his team of attorneys urged the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to overturn the July 15 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, who concluded that Smith was unlawfully appointed and did not have the legal authority to bring the case.
In their brief, Smith's team wrote, "Congress has bestowed on the Attorney General, like the heads of many Executive Departments, broad authority to structure the agency he leads to carry out the responsibilities imposed on him by law." They argued that the district court's view conflicts with decisions by the Supreme Court and longstanding practices within the Department of Justice and government as a whole.
The Justice Department had previously announced plans to appeal the ruling. Judge Cannon, appointed by Trump, found that the appointment of Smith by Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 violated the U.S. Constitution and that his budget, funded through an indefinite appropriation, was unlawful.
(With inputs from agencies.)
ALSO READ
Mystery Surrounds Death of Contract Worker in Attorney General's Office
Delhi High Court Upholds Right to Overseas Opportunities Despite Pending Criminal Cases
Supreme Court Urges Telangana to Mend Communication Gaps in Criminal Cases
Isha Foundation moves SC challenging Madras HC order asking Tamil Nadu Police to probe criminal cases against it.
Criminal cases should not be slapped against journalists merely because their writings are perceived as government's criticism: SC.