Multiple attorneys general urge appeals court to dismiss Trump indictment

(The Center Square) – Multiple state attorneys general have asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the federal court’s dismissal of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against President-elect Donald Trump.

Florida led a multi-state briefing; Texas filed its own application.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as a “special counsel” for the U.S. Department of Justice in November 2022. Garland also gave him “full power and independent authority to perform the duties of any U.S. Attorney” to investigate and prosecute Trump, according to the AG’s memo.

In one case, Smith accused Trump of mishandling classified documents in Florida, but a federal district judge dismissed it. Smith appealed the case to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The attorney general argues that Garland and Smith’s actions were illegal.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody led a multi-state coalition urging the 11th Circuit to uphold the dismissal of Smith’s indictment, arguing that Smith’s actions were “invalid because they violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution.”

Smith used his authority “to take the unprecedented step of impeaching a former President and primary political opponent of the current ruling regime.” states. “But unlike a U.S. Attorney, Smith faces close to zero presidential liability. He was not appointed by the President and was not confirmed by the Senate. It is also not subject to the general supervision of an official.” “Congress has neither authorized nor funded the Attorney General’s unilateral consolidation of this authority into a single, unaccountable official,” the coalition points out.

Moody said the coalition’s action was necessary even after the case was dismissed due to “persistent attempts by the Biden-Harris machine to prosecute political rivals” and “ensure that those responsible remain democratically accountable to the state’s citizens and control unprecedented abuses.” executive power.”

They argue that the court should dismiss the indictment because “Smith acted under regulations that permit the exercise of fundamental executive authority under the guidance of general control of the President or any chief official accountable to him.” Because these regulations violate Article 2 of the Constitution, Smith’s actions pursuant to them are invalid.”

He also took aim at Garland, saying he appointed Smith to eliminate the current Administration’s responsibility, and thus political accountability, for investigations and prosecutions under its authority. The Attorney General appointed Special Counsel Smith after President Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 election because the Attorney General felt it was in the ‘public interest’ to have a person ‘independent’ of the Administration preside over these criminal proceedings.

“The result: A single executive officer is now a political party with huge consequences, such as whether a former president and a current presidential candidate will be prosecuted, and what position the United States will take on whether and to what extent a President will enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution. unilaterally resolves issues of concern. . II. The clause does not authorize the Attorney General to grant executive authority to Jack Smith… The district court’s dismissal of the indictment must be affirmed.”

Moody is joined by attorneys general representing Iowa, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia. .

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a separate filing friendly summary he also argues that Smith was “illegally appointed” by Garland.

The brief argues that the case directly involves “the states’ fundamental interest in preventing unlawful federal action” because the U.S. Department of Justice argues that the U.S. Attorney General — acting without any legal direction from Congress — could authorize a private individual to spend tens of millions of dollars in federal fines. to enforce the laws. “This is a question that directly affects States and every citizen therein.”

Texas argues that because of the constitutional principle of estoppel, a U.S. attorney general “cannot authorize a private person to exercise such formidable power.” “The Constitution requires Congress to provide meaningful guidance to federal agencies in authorizing them to choose between two available enforcement paths, but here, the statutes DOJ cited provide no guidance,” the brief says.

Paxton, who filed the petition, said Garland’s appointment of Smith was “clearly unconstitutional.” 101 cases The move against the administration includes asking the court to order Smith not to destroy documents related to his investigation and prosecution of Trump. The Justice Department “spent more than $30 million to hire a private individual, without any authority, to harass the former President by weaponizing partisan law against him. “This erodes the rule of law that distinguishes the United States from third world totalitarian regimes,” he said.

Paxton said it was “extraordinary to assume that Congress has authorized the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to direct (rather than merely assist) a significant multidistrict investigation and prosecution on behalf of the United States.” “It is even more extraordinary to think that Congress would allow the Attorney General to do this for an unprecedented prosecution of a former President of the United States, one of the most high-profile and expensive prosecutions imaginable.”

He also says Congress needs to weigh in and “speak clearly so that the courts can conclude that the Attorney General has such authority.”