In a recent hearing, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised a crucial question regarding the charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump. While the court was considering Trump's argument of presidential immunity, another issue emerged: the authority of Smith and the Office of Special Counsel to bring charges.

During the nearly three-hour session at the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas asked Trump's attorney, John Sauer, whether they had challenged the appointment of the special counsel in this litigation. Sauer replied that they had not directly raised that concern in the current case before the Supreme Court. However, Sauer highlighted their agreement with the analysis provided by former Attorneys General Meese and Mukasey regarding the authority of the special counsel.

In a 42-page amicus brief submitted to the high court in March, Meese and Mukasey questioned whether Jack Smith had the lawful authority to undertake the criminal prosecution of Trump. They argued that neither Smith nor the position of special counsel, under which he purportedly acts, meets the criteria for federal appointments. Additionally, they raised concerns about the scope of Smith's prosecutorial power, considering he was never confirmed by the Senate for any position.

The key issue presented by Meese is that Smith was never confirmed as a U.S. attorney and that no statute allowed the attorney general to appoint anyone as a special counsel. Meese and Mukasey further contended that the special counsel exercises tremendous power with limited accountability, posing a threat to the rule of law.

Trump's attorneys also objected to the legitimacy of Smith's appointment in the charges brought against Trump in the classified documents case. They highlighted the contradictory arguments made by the special counsel's office, claiming independence from the White House in federal court but subordination to the attorney general to avoid Senate confirmation.

In response to Trump's claims, the special counsel's office argued that the attorney general has the statutory authority to appoint a special prosecutor and cited a 1974 Supreme Court case that upheld this authority. However, Meese and Mukasey countered that the Nixon case was irrelevant to the present situation, as it concerned the relationship between the President and the Department of Justice.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Trump's arguments of presidential immunity before the end of its term in June. Meanwhile, the Florida court is yet to rule on Trump's motion to dismiss the classified documents case due to claims of improper appointment of Smith.

The question of the special counsel's authority and the potential implications for future special counsel investigations have come to the forefront in this high-profile case. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will address these concerns and deliver its verdict on Trump's immunity claims in the coming weeks.