A recent ruling by Judge Aileen Cannon stating that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was "unconstitutional" is likely to be appealed, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court. This ruling could potentially affect Smith's case against former President Donald Trump related to the events of January 6, as well as the classified documents case that the judge dismissed.

Cannon's decision was based on her belief that Attorney General Merrick Garland, appointed by President Joe Biden, did not possess the authority to appoint Smith, as he is a private citizen and was not confirmed by the Senate. The dismissal of the classified documents case, coming shortly after the Supreme Court upheld former presidents' immunity for acts committed during their time in office, is seen as good news for Trump. This ruling is expected to have implications beyond the prosecution in Florida, potentially impacting Smith's other case against Trump in Washington, D.C.

Legal experts have acknowledged the significance of the Mar-a-Lago documents case, which has been considered one of the strongest against Trump. However, with Cannon's ruling, the case is now indefinitely prolonged and may even be dismissed entirely. Smith's office has announced its intention to appeal the ruling, a process that will likely involve the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This appeal could lead to a circuit split, increasing the chances of a Supreme Court review.

Despite potential backlash from critics who may view Cannon's ruling as political, legal experts believe her decision should be evaluated based on its merits rather than personal preferences. Cannon's opinion emphasizes the violation of the Constitution through Garland's appointment of Smith, as Congress never passed a statute granting such authority.

Trump's case in Washington, D.C., where he faces four counts related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, is expected to be impacted by Cannon's decision. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who presides over the D.C. case, is not legally bound by Cannon's ruling, but experts suggest that it allows Trump to raise similar issues, keeping in mind the likelihood of the Supreme Court ultimately supporting him.

Experts note that the D.C. Circuit previously rejected the argument accepted by Cannon, making it unclear whether her ruling will have an immediate effect on Trump's other case. Former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasky predicts that the contradictory positions of judges will likely persist until the case goes to appeal. Cherkasky believes that the issue of Smith's appointment will impact both the Florida and D.C. cases, leading to divisions at the Circuit Court level before ultimately seeking clarity from the Supreme Court.

An interesting development in the Supreme Court's previous ruling on presidential immunity came from Justice Clarence Thomas, as he expressed concerns that Smith's prosecution may violate the constitutional structure. Whether other justices will share Thomas's views remains uncertain, as the issue was not directly addressed in the previous ruling.

Regarding the potential political implications, former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno suggests that dropping the cases against Trump may be the wisest decision for President Biden, given his own history with mishandling classified documents. Moreno believes that such a move could present Biden as a conciliatory force in an attempt to ease the current hostility and anger in the nation.

With the appeal process expected to take several months and no clear precedent for predicting the Supreme Court's decision on this matter, the fate of Smith's appointment and its impact on Trump's cases remains to be seen. Time will tell how these legal battles will unfold and how they may shape the political landscape.