Former Attorney General Ed Meese, along with law professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, has filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to reject Special Counsel Jack Smith's requests. The trio argues that Smith's appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland is unconstitutional, violating the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

In their brief, Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson assert that Smith, as a private citizen, lacks the authority to represent the United States in the Court's proceedings. They compare him to a "naked emperor" who is improperly appointed and has no more authority than prominent individuals such as Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos.

The filing of the brief comes in response to Smith's request to expedite former President Donald Trump's case regarding presidential immunity for his actions on January 6, 2021. The charges against Trump are connected to the events of that day, which Smith is investigating.

Meese argues that the "illegality" of Smith's appointment should be enough to reject his petition and that the Court should deny review. The former Attorney General contends that the statutes cited by Garland as authority for Smith's appointment do not grant the Attorney General the power to appoint a private citizen with extraordinary criminal law enforcement powers.

Furthermore, Meese highlights that there is no specific statute authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President with Senate confirmation, to appoint a Special Counsel. He argues that under the Appointments Clause, superior officers like the Special Counsel can only be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Smith had previously petitioned the Supreme Court to decide on Trump's immunity claims in his case, aiming to expedite the process before the lower federal courts could fully address the matter. The request was made in order to keep Trump's trial, scheduled to begin on March 4 in Washington, D.C., on track.

It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will respond to Meese's arguments and whether they will impact Smith's case or the timeline of Trump's trial. This development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing investigations and legal proceedings surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, and their aftermath.

In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will evaluate the arguments presented by Meese and the brief filed by Smith. Their decision will shape the trajectory of the case and have implications for the broader discussion surrounding presidential immunity and the powers of the Special Counsel.