U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump's motion to dismiss the case, concluding that Smith's appointment as a special counsel violated the Appointments Clause, and that the funds his office has spent to pursue Trump violated the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the expenditure of federal monies without an express appropriation by Congress.
The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers.
Cannon also noted that Attorney General Merrick Garland could have tasked any of the 93 current U.S. attorneys with handling the Trump classified documents case without violating the Appointments Clause since they were all confirmed by the Senate after having been nominated by Biden.
The Appointments Clause provides, in pertinent part that the president "Shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Having already determined that no such law exists, Cannon concluded that Smith has "Unlawfully" drawn "Tens of millions of dollars" to pursue Trump since his appointment in violation of the Appropriations Clause.
In the case of inferior officers, that means that Congress is empowered to decide if it wishes to vest appointment power in a Head of Department, and indeed, Congress has proven itself quite capable of doing so in many other statutory contexts.
Cannon's opinion is a serious and thorough analysis of important constitutional issues pertaining to the Constitution's Appointments Clause and Appropriations Clause.
No comments:
Post a Comment