In a bid to resurrect the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith has appealed to an appeals court, arguing that the lower court's decision to dismiss the charges was in deviation of legal precedent and failed to consider historical context. Smith submitted an initial brief defending his lawful appointment and challenging U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's ruling that found his appointment as special counsel to be unconstitutional.

The indictment against Trump, his aide Walt Nauta, and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira was dismissed by Judge Cannon in July. She concluded that Smith's appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Trump now has until September 26 to respond to the special counsel's arguments.

Smith and his team argue in their filing that previous court decisions, historical practices, and appropriations by Congress validate the attorney general's authority to appoint special counsels for law enforcement missions. They claim that Cannon's view conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and that her ruling "lacks merit."

Prosecutors defend Smith's appointment based on historical and legal precedents, pointing to the landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1974 in United States v. Nixon as support for the attorney general's appointment authority. Smith's team also highlights the potential consequences of allowing Cannon's ruling to stand, suggesting that it could cast doubt on past appointments in the Justice Department and throughout the executive branch.

Smith's swift appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit indicates that the dispute over the constitutionality of his appointment is likely to reach the Supreme Court. Cannon's ruling came after Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion questioning the legality of Smith's appointment in a separate case involving Trump.

The charges against Trump involve allegations of unlawfully handling classified documents after leaving office in January 2021. Federal investigators recovered approximately 300 sensitive records from Trump's Mar-a-Lago property in 2022, with over 100 seized during an FBI search in August. Trump, Nauta, and De Oliveira are also accused of obstructing the Justice Department's investigation.

While Smith's appointment as special counsel has faced setbacks, such as the delay caused by Trump's claim of presidential immunity, challenges to similar appointments in recent years have been rejected by federal judges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, for example, upheld Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel in 2019.

With the ongoing appeals court proceedings, the dismissal of the documents case, and the delay in the 2020 election case, it is unlikely that Trump will face trial in either prosecution before the upcoming November 5th election. Prosecutors and Trump's lawyers are currently working on proposing a schedule for moving forward in the case, with a hearing scheduled for September 5th before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for the authority of the attorney general to appoint special counsels, as well as for the future of investigations and appointments within the Justice Department and executive branch.