First let's start by saying this case was not dismissed based on the merits, nor did the ruling say it was dismissed with prejudice. This means the prosecution can bring this case again. The case was dismissed on procedural grounds, particularly the appointments clause and the appropriation clause.

 

What was the issue with Jack Smith?

Attorney general Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate former president Trump. Smith was not an employee of the federal prosecution; he was a prosecutor for the UN. Garland enlisted Smith as a special counsel with the authority of a US attorney. US attorneys have the authority to prosecute crimes across state lines with the full force of the US prosecution behind them. They are officers of the executive branch, a position created by Congress. This position falls under the appointments clause meaning to hold it one must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The problem is Congress created no such office as the special counsel.

The appointments clause states only Congress can create officer positions in the executive branch and only Congress can grant exceptions. The only exception is the executive branch can create officers in US prisons. Previous special counsels were all once US attorneys appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate.

 

The prosecution's take.

The prosecution argued that Jack Smith's role fell under the Janet Reno rule. In 1999 the independent counsel act expired, and Janet Reno implemented regulations giving attorney generals the authority to appoint special prosecutors. Under this rule special prosecutors had the authority of US attorneys. The prosecution also argued that under this rule, Smith was neither an officer of the executive branch nor an inferior officer of the executive branch. They reasoned because he was neither and appointed by regulations the appointments clause did not apply.

 

Separation of powers.

Judge Cannon sited when the colonies were under England’s rule, the king would often create and fill positions to go after those who did not agree with his policies or ideology. The founding fathers did not want this kind of power in the hands of the executive branch alone, so they created the appointments clause. It requires not only a presidential nomination but confirmation by the Senate splitting that power between two branches of government.

As per Cannon, Reno could create regulation, but she could not create regulation that bypasses the appointments clause. Jack Smith could be an employee of the government under direct control of the attorney general, but he could not be independent of the attorney general with the power of a US attorney.

 

Who does Jack Smith report to?

When Judge Cannon held a hearing on the legitimacy of Jack Smith's appointment, she asked who Smith reports to? The prosecution gave shrouded answers and often invoked they could not answer because it was an ongoing investigation. The prosecution did say Smith was neither an officer nor an inferior officer, he was an employee of Merrick Garland. Cannon pressed if he was an employee then he would answer to Garland and not truly be independent. The prosecution insisted he was independent which raised the question, how could an employee be independent of the attorney general?

 

The appropriations clause.

Judge Cannon asked if Congress had appropriated money for Smith's investigations and the prosecution said no. Cannon then asked where did they get the money and what is the limit? The prosecution responded there is no limit, and they can get the money from anywhere in the Department of Justice. Cannon also asked when was the last time they submitted a required spending report and added it was several months overdue. The prosecution responded that the report was done but it just had not been submitted. Cannon reminded them submitting that report was law.

 

Justice Thomas

In the presidential immunity case, justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, and, in that opinion, he had several questions for the prosecution on the legitimacy of Jack Smith's appointment. Was Smith an officer of the executive branch? Justice Thomas cited that only an officer of the executive branch had the power to prosecute and if Smith was prosecuting people as an employee, that was a constitutional issue all on its own. He also asked did Congress appropriate funds for this prosecution. Funding is the checks and balance Congress has on the executive branch. To have unlimited funding means Congress has no oversight.

 

The ruling.

The prosecutors cited their authority to appoint Jack Smith as vested in the Reno rule, but that rule was unconstitutional. The executive branch cannot unilaterally create a position with the power of an officer, but none of the oversight. Merrick Garland had essentially created a position that had more power than his own, instilling a person that was never nominated or confirmed with an unlimited budget. Such actions violated the appropriations clause and the appointments clause. Because they did, Jack Smith had no authority to investigate or prosecute this case. Cannon added her ruling does not affect other cases and the case could be brought by the prosecution if they followed the constitution