Federal prosecutors have launched an appeal to restore the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, countering his assertions that the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel violated the Constitution. Assistant Special Counsel James Pearce, a member of Smith's team, filed a brief with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the validity of Smith's appointment and proper funding. The appeal argues that the district court's dismissal of the indictment deviated from Supreme Court precedents, misunderstood the statutes authorizing the appointment, and failed to consider the historical tradition of attorney general appointments of special counsels.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, granted Trump's attorneys' request to dismiss the case, citing constitutional violations related to Smith's appointment. The appeal emphasizes that the appointment of special counsels by attorneys general has been a longstanding practice for over 150 years. The brief also cites a 1998 law review article by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, then a legal scholar, referring to the tradition as "deeply rooted."

The appeal places particular weight on the Supreme Court's 1974 ruling in United States v. Nixon, upholding the enforceability of a subpoena issued by a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal. While the legality of a special counsel or prosecutor was not directly under scrutiny in Nixon, the appeal argues that the Supreme Court's decision was based on the presumption that such appointments were permissible. The defense team contends that Cannon's reference to the Nixon decision as nonbinding was incorrect, asserting that it bound lower courts.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith in 2022 to investigate Trump's handling of classified materials and his alleged efforts to undermine the 2020 presidential election, leading up to the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Pearce's filing highlights the potential consequences for the federal government if Cannon's dismissal is upheld, claiming that it would raise questions about numerous appointments throughout the Executive Branch in various departments including Defense, State, Treasury, and Labor.

Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump's campaign, voiced support for Cannon's dismissal of the case and urged its affirmation. Cheung referred to the charges as "Lawless Indictment" and labeled them as politically motivated attacks, asserting that they interfere with Trump's bid for a second presidential term. Trump's legal team did not immediately provide a comment on the filing.

Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, is facing charges of willfully retaining national defense information after leaving office and directing the deletion of security video at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. In an ongoing effort to postpone or dismiss court proceedings, Trump and his attorneys have sought delays until after the general election in November. In a separate case tied to hush money payments, Trump requested a further postponement of the sentencing hearing, which has been rescheduled for September 18.

The appeals process for Trump's federal election interference case, also handled by Jack Smith's team, has ensured that the trial will not commence before Election Day. Additionally, Trump's indictment in Georgia, linked to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, has been paused to allow a state appeals court to hear challenges regarding the disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis as the prosecutor. As a result, that case will also not proceed to trial before November.