In a significant legal development, special counsel Jack Smith has urged a federal appeals court to reinstate the dismissed classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. Smith's team argues that the judge's decision to dismiss the prosecution contradicts longstanding Justice Department practice and must be reversed.

According to prosecutors, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon made a serious error by ruling that Smith's appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland was unlawful. They emphasize that this position goes against previous rulings by judges across the country and established appointment practices within the Department of Justice and the government at large.

If the decision is allowed to stand, prosecutors warn that it could have far-reaching consequences, jeopardizing the operations of the Justice Department and questioning numerous appointments throughout the Executive Branch. They firmly state that Attorney General Garland properly appointed the Special Counsel, who also has legitimate funding.

Prosecutors argue that the district court deviated from binding Supreme Court precedent, misinterpreted the statutes authorizing the Special Counsel's appointment, and failed to consider the historical precedence of Attorney General appointments of special counsels.

This appeal marks the latest development in a prosecution that legal experts have long considered a straightforward criminal case due to the extensive evidence amassed by Justice Department investigators, including surveillance videos and an audio recording of President Trump's own words.

However, the case has faced delays as Judge Cannon entertained various motions from the Trump legal team before ultimately dismissing the prosecution. This surprising decision temporarily halted the proceedings.

It remains uncertain how long the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will take to decide on this matter. Even if Cannon's dismissal is overturned and the prosecution is revived, a trial before the November presidential election is unlikely. Should Trump be reelected, he could appoint an attorney general who might dismiss the case altogether.

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung released a statement in support of affirming the dismissal of the indictment in Florida, calling for the dismissal of all "Witch Hunts."

The case, one of four federal and state prosecutions against Trump, involves multiple felony charges related to Trump's alleged illegal retention of classified documents from his presidency at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, as well as obstruction of the government's attempts to recover them. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

At the heart of the appeal is a provision of the Constitution called the Appointments Clause, which requires presidential approval and Senate confirmation for certain public figures. However, an exception exists for "inferior officers" who can be appointed directly by the agency's head. The Justice Department argues that Smith fits this category and that Garland had the authority to appoint him as special counsel.

Smith was appointed as special counsel in November 2022 to investigate Trump's handling of the classified documents and his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election prior to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Both investigations have resulted in criminal charges, although the outcome of the election subversion prosecution is uncertain after a recent Supreme Court decision granted Trump broad immunity and narrowed the scope of the case.

Defense attorneys in the classified documents case claimed that Smith's appointment violated the Appointments Clause. This led to a multi-day hearing in June, during which Judge Cannon sided with the defense, stating that Garland's appointment of Smith lacked specific statutory authority and was unlawful since the President or the Senate had not named or confirmed him.

Prosecutors counter that four statutes grant the attorney general the power to appoint a special counsel like Smith. They argue that this authority has been recognized by judges across the country for decades and cite numerous historical examples of attorneys general appointing special and independent counsels to handle federal investigations.

The prosecutors stress that both Democratic and Republican administrations have employed special counsels from outside the Justice Department to investigate various matters in recent years. They assert that Cannon's ruling implies that all such appointments have been invalid and questions whether Congress repeatedly overlooked these errors.

In December 2022, a three-judge panel from the same appeals court overturned Cannon's decision, ruling that she had exceeded her authority by appointing an independent arbiter to review the classified records seized by the FBI during the Mar-a-Lago estate investigation.