U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has decided to allow outside parties to participate in a hearing regarding the legality of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment in one of the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump. This hearing, set for June 21 in Florida, will feature arguments from three outside experts, each given 30 minutes to present their case.
One of the experts, Gene Schaerr, who represents former U.S. Attorneys General, argues that Jack Smith’s appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland is invalid because Smith was not a federal employee at the time of his appointment. Schaerr contends that the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires Senate confirmation for such appointments, which Smith did not receive.
President Trump’s legal team also supports this view. Attorney Christopher Kise argues that Garland’s appointment of Smith, who was a private citizen, violates the Constitution. They assert that only Congress can create a federal office, and no law authorizes Smith’s position.
On the other side, Matthew Seligman, another expert, argues that the Attorney General has the authority to appoint a special counsel under Section 533, which allows the appointment of officials to prosecute crimes against the United States. Seligman asserts that Trump’s argument overlooks this statutory provision.
Josh Blackman, a law professor and another expert, concurs with Trump’s legal team, emphasizing that Smith’s temporary position precludes him from being an officer of the United States. He argues that Smith can only exercise significant authority under the supervision of a U.S. attorney, but Smith’s role involves apex decision-making authority, subject only to limited supervision by the Attorney General. Blackman suggests that for Smith to continue in his role legally, he would need to be supervised by a U.S. attorney.
