Federal prosecutors launched their efforts on Monday to revive the classified documents case against former President Donald J. Trump after it was dismissed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon last month. The prosecutors argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, claiming that Judge Cannon had wrongly thrown out the charges. They asserted that the special counsel, Jack Smith, was appointed legally, countering the judge's ruling that dismissed the case based on his alleged illegal appointment.

The ruling by Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump himself, startled legal experts due to its contradiction of long-standing Justice Department practices and previous court decisions regarding the appointment of special prosecutors. Interestingly, the ruling was delivered on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, providing a significant legal victory to Mr. Trump during a critical moment in his political career.

Mr. Smith's appeal brief, submitted on Monday, marked the beginning of what is expected to be a protracted legal battle. The case may potentially reach the Supreme Court and could extend well beyond the upcoming November elections. If Mr. Trump emerges victorious, he would have the authority to remove Mr. Smith from his position and instruct the Justice Department to drop the appeal. Conversely, if he loses, the appeals process will determine whether he can still face trial on the charges.

The dismissed case against Mr. Trump involved allegations of him illicitly retaining classified national security materials after leaving office and obstructing government efforts to recover them. His two co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, who were associated with his private club and residence in Florida, Mar-a-Lago, were also implicated in the charges.

The prosecutors argued that Judge Cannon had erred in her ruling by concluding that no specific federal statute authorized the appointment of special counsels like Mr. Smith or granted them prosecutorial powers. They referenced four existing statutes they believe grant the attorney general the authority to appoint special counsels. The filing emphasized that Judge Cannon's decision contradicted a history of legal precedents, including those set by the Supreme Court, and was at odds with longstanding appointment practices within the Department of Justice.

The appointment of special counsels, whose independence from the officials who appoint them is crucial for conducting politically sensitive investigations, has been a practice dating back to the aftermath of the Civil War. Mr. Smith's deputies reminded the appeals court of this historical context, citing the case of Confederate leader Jefferson Davis, who faced charges of seditious conspiracy.

This legal battle over the revived charges against Mr. Trump adds to the numerous criminal cases he is currently facing, including those related to his business and political activities. As the November elections draw closer, the outcome of these cases may have implications for his potential bid for the presidency in 2024.

In conclusion, federal prosecutors are determined to breathe new life into the dismissed classified documents case against former President Trump. Their arguments before the appeals court challenge the ruling by Judge Cannon, setting the stage for a potentially lengthy legal battle that may have far-reaching consequences for Mr. Trump's political future.