Special Counsel Jack Smith argued in a brief Friday that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ views on his appointment should not influence the criminal proceedings against President Trump.
Smith emphasized that Thomas’ comments in the presidential immunity case, which were part of a solo concurrence, are not binding on US District Judge Aileen Cannon. He further noted that these comments do not justify deviating from the consensus among courts that the Attorney General has the statutory authority to appoint a Special Counsel.
Last week, Trump’s legal team highlighted both the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and Thomas’ concurrence to Judge Cannon. This decision emerged from the election “subversion” case in Washington, DC, but could potentially affect all four cases against Trump. Trump’s lawyers argued that Thomas’ concurrence supports their motion to dismiss the Florida charges, asserting that Smith’s appointment was illegal and that his office's funding is unconstitutional.
Smith responded on Friday, agreeing with Trump’s legal team that additional briefs should be filed to determine how the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling impacts the documents case. Trump maintains that he is entitled to presidential immunity and has called for the case to be dismissed.
Judge Cannon has yet to indicate how she will consider the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case and has requested further briefs on how to proceed.
Read Smith’s filing here.
