Special counsel Jack Smith is appealing a bombshell ruling from a Florida judge Monday tossing out the case accusing Donald Trump of hoarding confidential documents.
Federal Judge Aileen Cannon — who was appointed by the former president — dismissed the entire case against the 78-year-old on the grounds that Smith’s appointment to the prosecution violated the Constitution.
Smith — who is also overseeing the Washington, DC, case accusing Trump of 2020 election interference —filed a notice of appeal Wednesday of Cannon’s decision to the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit.
Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung in a statement urged the Justice Department to “drop these politically motivated, election interference efforts against President Trump immediately.”
“Let us come together to END the weaponization of our justice system and Make America Great Again!” Cheung added, referencing the “hush money” conviction, two earlier civil judgments and the ongoing criminal charges hanging over the 45th president.
Those latter indictments include Smith’s stalled federal case against Trump for making “knowingly false” claims about voter fraud after the 2020 election that culminated in a mob of his supporters breaching the US Capitol building and delaying the certification of votes on Jan. 6, 2021.
Cannon ruled that Congress needed to approve Smith’s appointment by US Attorney General Merrick Garland, as well as the funds that his office had spent prosecuting the Republican presidential nominee.
The decision came roughly two weeks after Trump scored a win with a US Supreme Court ruling that found he benefits from absolute presidential immunity for “official acts.”
That ruling did specify what were considered “official acts” in the two federal cases against him.
But in a concurring decision, Justice Clarence Thomas paved the way for Cannon’s ruling, saying he thought the special counsel’s appointment may be unconstitutional.
Former Trump attorney Jim Trusty told The Post that former Attorney General Ed Meese submitted an amicus brief late last year that also put pressure on the judge to consider whether Smith’s appointment by current AG Garland violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
The brief pointed out that Congress has yet to pass legislation recognizing the creation of the special counsel role after the elimination of an earlier law designating independent counsels for the Justice Department.
“Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift or Jeff Bezos,’’ Meese and his brief co-authors said of Smith’s appointment.
Cannon in her ruling had also pointed out that prosecutors in Smith’s office billed the DOJ at least $24 million in bringing the unprecedented indictment against Trump last year for allegedly retaining sensitive national defense material at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Still, Democrats in Congress slammed Cannon’s ruling as “misguided” and argued on “dubious constitutional grounds,” while Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe went as far as to accuse the Florida judge of writing “her job application to be the first appointee to the Supreme Court in Trump’s possible second term when Justice Alito or Justice Thomas retires.”
But Republicans celebrated the decision, with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) calling it “good news for America and for the rule of law.”
The Post has reached out to Trump’s attorneys and Smith’s prosecutorial team for comment.