US v Trump: First day of Florida hearing wraps in classified docs case

Former President Trump's first day in court for a hearing to determine the lawfulness of Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment in the classified document investigation concluded Friday without a decision being made.

Friday's hearing inside a courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida, ended around 2:30 p.m. after the court heard arguments from the defense and prosecution as well as constitutional lawyers supporting either side's analysis.

Prior to concluding for the day, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon heard an argument from a lawyer backing up the Trump defense team's claims.

Josh Blackman of Landmark Legal Foundation argued that Smith did not wield the proper authority to exercise the powers he had been given.

TRUMP CLASSIFIED DOCS JUDGE TO WEIGH ALLEGED 'UNLAWFUL' APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH

The arguments were centered on whether the law authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel, such as Smith. The discussions during the hearing were policy-heavy, as each side sought to prove what is truly meant by the law and what authority is ultimately bestowed on Garland and Smith.

Matthew Seligman, a constitutional lawyer and scholar, argued on behalf of the DOJ during the hearing, pointing to one specific word in a statute that backs Garland's appointment of Smith in the classified documents case.

The word "appoint" is used in section 533, he pointed out to Cannon. This is significant, he explained, as ordinary employees are not installed via appointment. The word is used in the context of government officials, who are put in place by appointment.

According to Seligman, who is part of a group of constitutional lawyers called Defenders of Democracy, the statute