Clarence Thomas signaled how he might rule on a challenge to Trump special counsel. Would other justices follow?

WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court this month handed a big win to former President Donald Trump on presidential immunity, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote his own opinion raising questions about a related issue: Was special counsel Jack Smith lawfully appointed?

"If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people," Thomas wrote. It was questionable whether Smith's appointment was indeed valid under the Constitution's Appointments Clause, he added.

Thomas did not definitively answer the question, but his approach to Trump's election interference case was echoed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday when she dismissed the charges in Trump's classified documents case in Florida, which is also being prosecuted by Smith.

Her ruling, which cited Thomas' opinion three times, raises the possibility of an appeal in the case going to the Supreme Court, where the nine justices would tackle the issue head-on. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

What is unclear, however, is whether Thomas' views would carry the day, as no other justices signed on to his opinion earlier this month.

Lawyers involved in arguing the issue in the Florida court had predictably differing views on whether Thomas’ position would prevail if the issue came before the Supreme Court.

“I think Justice Thomas is always on the vanguard of conservative legal thought,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law who filed a brief backing Trump on the appointment issue. “His concurrence was solo, but I suspect several other members, maybe even a majority, may agree with him,” he added.

Matthew Seligman, a lawyer who argued in support of Smith’s