In a significant legal development, Special Counsel Jack Smith is vigorously defending the authority of his office in an effort to revive the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. This comes after Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the criminal case last month, citing the lack of constitutional authority for the prosecutors' office. Smith's argument, outlined in a brief filed with the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, contends that Cannon's decision was both "novel" and lacked merit.

The crux of Cannon's ruling was that the Justice Department did not possess the power to appoint or fund special counsels like Smith. However, Smith's legal team is emphasizing the grave implications of this decision. They argue that not only does it impact ongoing special counsel prosecutions, including those involving Trump and Hunter Biden, but it also potentially affects the authority of leaders throughout the federal government.

In an 81-page filing, Smith's office asserted, "If the Attorney General lacks the power to appoint inferior officers, that conclusion would invalidate the appointment of every member of the Department who exercises significant authority and occupies a continuing office, other than the few that are specifically identified by statute." The prosecution warned that such a rationale would call into question hundreds of appointments across various executive branch departments, such as Defense, State, Treasury, and Labor.

The case against Donald Trump stems from the charges filed last summer, accusing him of mishandling sensitive government documents taken from the White House at the end of his presidency. In addition to these counts, Trump also faces obstruction charges related to alleged efforts to impede the federal probe into the materials. The former president, along with his co-defendants who are Trump employees accused of obstruction, has pleaded not guilty.

Currently, the 11th Circuit is reviewing Cannon's determinations that Smith's appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional and that his office was being unlawfully funded. Cannon dismissed the charges based on these grounds while leaving other significant legal questions regarding the prosecution unresolved. Notably, other courts have previously upheld the use of special counsels. However, Cannon's ruling relied on a concurrence written by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Supreme Court's presidential immunity case, which also raised concerns about the constitutionality of Smith's appointment.

It remains to be seen which judges from the 11th Circuit will serve on the three-judge panel tasked with reviewing Cannon's dismissal of the charges. The court, known for its conservative leanings, previously raised criticisms of Cannon in a lawsuit brought by Trump in 2022, challenging the FBI's search of his Mar-a-Lago resort. In that case, the 11th Circuit overturned multiple rulings by Cannon that had constrained the probe into the classified documents, emphasizing that no individual, including former presidents, should be able to impede government investigations after a search warrant has been executed.

The outcome of the appeal will have far-reaching implications and could potentially reshape the landscape of special counsel appointments and government authority. As the legal battle between Special Counsel Jack Smith and Donald Trump continues, all eyes are now on the 11th Circuit to determine the fate of the revived case.