In recent news, the Attorneys General for 19 states filed a brief at the United States Supreme Court to stop Jack Smith’s attempt to bypass the appeals process in his prosecution of former President Trump. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey shared the news on Twitter, calling the Department of Justice’s efforts to accelerate the prosecution “blatantly partisan.” He urged the Supreme Court to reject it.
Amidst this legal battle, former Ronald Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, along with law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. In this advisory statement, Meese made a shocking claim that Smith did not obtain his authority as a special counsel in a legal or constitutional manner. Therefore, he lacks the standing to represent the United States in front of a federal court.
According to The Western Journal, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as a special counsel to pursue legal actions against Trump and others who objected to the 2020 presidential election. In August 2022, Trump was indicted on four felony charges related to his election challenges and the January 6, 2021 Capitol incursion. Smith recently submitted a petition to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to rule on the question of presidential immunity.
Meese and his colleagues questioned the validity of Smith’s appointment, adding the word “alleged” before the phrase “special counsel” in his case. They argued that Smith has no business appearing before a federal court and lacks any authority to represent the United States.
In Meese’s concluding statement, he likened Smith to a “naked emperor,” stating that improperly appointed, Smith has no more authority to represent the United States than public figures like Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos.
The amicus brief submitted by Meese and his colleagues to the Supreme Court highlights their concerns about the legality and standing of Jack Smith as a special counsel in the case against Trump.
The ongoing legal battle continues to attract attention and raises questions about the appointment and authority of special counsels in high-profile cases. As the Supreme Court evaluates the briefs and petitions submitted, the outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the legal landscape in the United States.
