Former President Donald Trump’s legal team on Thursday filed a motion to dismiss the federal case against him regarding the January 6 Capitol riot, arguing that Special Counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed. The motion was presented to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and closely mirrors a previous argument Trump made in Florida, which resulted in a separate federal judge dismissing his documents-related indictment.
This latest request comes as Trump faces four felony charges related to his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
In their motion, Trump’s attorneys assert that the case was flawed from the start, stating, “This unjust case was dead on arrival — unconstitutional even before its inception.” They claim that Smith’s appointment lacks constitutional validity because he was not confirmed by the Senate, arguing that this necessitates the dismissal of the indictment and the halting of any further expenditures by Smith’s office.
Smith is expected to respond to the motion by October 31, although his team has previously rejected similar arguments.
In a notable ruling earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon agreed with Trump, dismissing the federal classified documents case by determining that Smith’s appointment was not lawful. Cannon’s decision stated that no legal statute grants the Attorney General the power to appoint a federal officer with the prosecutorial authority held by a special counsel.
Interestingly, Cannon has emerged as a potential candidate for the position of Attorney General in a prospective Trump administration, according to multiple news outlets.
A document titled “Transition Planning: Legal Principals,” which outlines possible staffing for key legal positions in a future Trump administration, reportedly lists Cannon among potential nominees for top roles at the Department of Justice and other federal agencies. This document was crafted by Trump’s senior advisers, including Boris Epshteyn, who oversees Trump’s legal team.
Cannon’s association with Trump’s personnel plans raises questions about the motivations behind her rulings, especially in the context of the ongoing legal challenges Trump faces.
In the classified documents case, Cannon’s ruling represented a significant legal win for Trump, although Smith is currently appealing that decision, with an outcome not expected until after the presidential election.
In his appeal, Smith contended that the Attorney General’s appointment of the special counsel was valid and properly funded. He argued that Cannon’s ruling deviated from established Supreme Court precedent and failed to consider the historical context of special counsel appointments.
The debate around Smith’s appointment has gained attention following a statement from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who suggested that if Trump’s “unprecedented prosecution” were to proceed, it should be led by someone duly authorized by the electorate. Thomas urged lower courts to clarify the legitimacy of the special counsel’s appointment before moving forward with the case.
