Cannon’s Dismissal of Trump Case Rejects Precedents of Higher Courts

In declaring that the appointment of Jack Smith as a special counsel was illegitimate and throwing out his indictment against former President Donald J. Trump in the classified documents case, Judge Aileen M. Cannon cut against decades of rulings by higher courts.

But Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee who has previously made unusual rulings in his favor only to be reversed, argued that the original Supreme Court precedent those cases trace back to was unpersuasive, especially in light of subsequent developments in the law. Others had simply relied on that case without performing new analysis, she added.

Under the Constitution, Congress can give the heads of departments in the executive branch the authority to appoint “inferior” officers. Even as she expressed doubt about whether a special counsel, who wields the same powers as a United States attorney, a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed position, should have that status, Judge Cannon accepted that it does for the purpose of her analysis.

She then turned to the question of whether Congress had authorized Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to appoint someone from outside the government as a special counsel. While Mr. Smith is a former Justice Department prosecutor, he worked for an international court in Europe at the time Mr. Garland asked him to handle the criminal inquiries into Mr. Trump.

The Justice Department argued that it had, citing a series of statutes in which lawmakers empowered attorneys general to appoint officials “to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States,” and may assign any attorney he has “specially appointed” under law to “conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal.” But Judge Cannon said those laws were not good enough.