Former Attorney General Edwin Meese and two constitutional scholars have challenged the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith at the Supreme Court, asserting that it was unconstitutional, and all actions against former President Donald Trump should be voided.
In a filing on Wednesday, Mr. Meese and the scholars urged the court to reject Mr. Smith’s request for “certiorari before judgment” because he did not have the authority to request it or conduct the prosecution of the cases targeting President Trump.
The filing contended that Attorney General Merrick Garland had “exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority” when he appointed Mr. Smith to govern the two federal cases against President Trump. The brief stated that the appointment did not conform to statutes or the Constitution, as Mr. Smith was a private citizen who had never been confirmed by the Senate.
In an article for Reason published on Dec. 20, law professor Steven Calabresi indicated that he believed the Supreme Court would agree with their position. He, along with Mr. Meese and another constitutional scholar, Gary Lawson, argued that the appointment of Mr. Smith as Special Counsel was unconstitutional and that his actions should be nullified.
President Trump’s attorneys have also urged the Supreme Court to reject Mr. Smith’s petition, claiming that the special counsel is seeking a conviction before the 2024 election. Furthermore, the DOJ has not yet responded to these claims with the Supreme Court.
The case stems from an appeal on whether President Trump has immunity from prosecution in the federal election case. The former president has been arguing in appeals courts that he had absolute immunity because he was the president.
Mr. Smith, who was appointed special counsel while working as a war crimes investigator for the government of Kosovo, was previously a U.S. attorney for the middle district of Tennessee. According to
The Supreme Court has indicated that it will decide quickly whether to hear the case, with prosecutors having requested an expedited resolution. Prosecutors have emphasized the urgency of the case, stating, “The Court should grant certiorari and set a briefing schedule that would permit this case to be argued and resolved as promptly as possible.”
Mr. Meese, a former attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, reiterated in an article that they believe Mr. Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel was unconstitutional, and that all his actions should be voided.
The ongoing controversy surrounding Mr. Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel has attracted considerable attention and remains to be resolved. Both sides are awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court, which will ultimately address this crucial constitutional issue.
