How the Trump Prosecutions Could End Up Weakening Prosecutors

The practical effect of Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s bombshell decision this week tossing out former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case was immediately clear.

Barring a quick reversal by an appeals court, it eliminated what had long been thought of as the most straightforward of the four criminal cases Mr. Trump has faced. And it did so just as Mr. Trump was about to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president.

But the ruling could also have a broader impact down the road, especially if the Supreme Court eventually gets to consider the issue at its center: whether the special counsel Jack Smith, who has filed two indictments against Mr. Trump, was appointed to his job unconstitutionally.

Should the court take up that question and uphold Judge Cannon’s findings, it would be the second time the justices have made a decision that could make prosecuting powerful political figures like Mr. Trump more complicated.

Just two weeks ago, the court’s conservative majority issued a landmark ruling in Mr. Trump’s other federal case — the one in which he stands accused of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. In that ruling, the justices granted Mr. Trump (and all other future former presidents) broad immunity from prosecution for many, if not most, of their official acts.

If Judge Cannon’s reasoning about special counsels prevails, Mr. Smith’s attempts to hold Mr. Trump accountable in both criminal cases might paradoxically end up having a very different effect by leaving most official acts of a president in office beyond the law and making the process of appointing independent prosecutors in politically sensitive cases at a minimum more cumbersome.