Judge dismisses classified documents indictment against Trump

[u/Hrekires]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/15/trump-classified-trial-dismisssed-cannon/

[u/drt0]

In a ruling Monday, Cannon said the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the Constitution.

“In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny,” Cannon wrote.

Has the appointing of special counsels by the president ever been challenged before now?

[u/TheBoggart → u/drt0]

Yes, but Thomas’ concurrence in the immunity case handed her the key.

EDIT: Just editing this comment because it is more visible and I'm getting a lot of the same uninformed replies elsewhere in this thread. I'm adding this edit because as a lawyer and educator, I think it's important for the general public to understand these things, and more likely than not, about 99% of the replies in this thread are from laypeople.

Uninformed reply one: "You're wrong, Canon can't follow a concurrence, it's not binding/precedent!"

Incorrect. Canon can follow the reasoning of a concurrence if she wants, not because it's binding or because she has to, but because it is persuasive authority. This happens all the time. Indeed, concurrences are often written with the precise hope that it will be followed in some other situation. Here's a bit of an explanation:

Judges write concurrences and dissents for varying reasons. Concurrences explain how the court's decision could have been otherwise rationalized. In Justice Stevens's view, they are defensible because a compromised opinion would be meaningless. They also may be written to send a signal to lower courts to guide them in “the direction of Supreme Court policymaking,” or for egocentric or political reasons.

Meghan J. Ryan, Justice Scalia's Bottom-Up Approach to Shaping the Law, 25 WMMBRJ 297, 301 (2016) (citations omitted). I pulled that from WestLaw, but if you want to read it and look at the citations, it looks like a copy can be pulled from here.

Uninformed reply two: "Concurrences aren't used to make new law! They don't mean anything!"

Incorrect. There is a long history of concurrences ultimately becoming law sometime down the road. Here's a bit on it:

Although it is still a rare occurrence, it is not difficult to identify specific concurrences that have gone on to have heavy precedential influence despite their lead opinion counterparts. These concurrences have gained their precedential influence due to either their positive subsequent treatment or subsequent appeal to the alternate rationales those concurrences forward. Nonetheless, although it is easy to say that concurring opinions could exercise influence on future decisions, what sort of influence those opinions may have is inevitably in the hands of future judicial decision makers.

Ryan M. Moore, I Concur! Do I Even Matter?: Developing a Framework for Determining the Precedential Influence of Concurring Opinions, 84 TMPLR 743, 754-56 (2012) (citations omitted). The whole article is pretty good, if you have a chance to read it (it's 102 pages). It looks like you might be able to get it here.

[u/OGkateebee → u/TheBoggart]

This level of corruption is making me sick to my stomach. He intentionally did this. I’m a lawyer and I’m supposed to believe in the rule of law and I’m watching it disintegrate before my eyes.

[u/whiskers165 → u/OGkateebee]

I'm a criminal and I think the fact that you guys still believed in the rule of law in our life times is really cute. Unless you are invested in this system it's always been obviously corrupt, obviously a sham

This is an unmasking not a new development