Judge rules to dismiss superseding indictment in Trump classified docs
2 Min Read
The order noted that Smith's use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the US Constitution's Appropriations Clause.
-
Former President Donald Trump leaves the courthouse after a jury found him guilty of all 34 felony counts in his criminal trial at Manhattan Criminal Court, Thursday, May 30, 2024, in New York (Justin Lane/Pool Photo via AP)
In an order filed on Monday, US District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the superseding indictment in the classified documents case involving former President Donald Trump.
"Former President Trump's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith is granted in accordance with this Order. The Superseding Indictment is dismissed because Special Counsel Smith's appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution," the order said.
The order noted that Smith's use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the US Constitution's Appropriations Clause.
Smith first charged Trump with 37 counts over his alleged mishandling of classified materials and later issued a superseding indictment adding three more counts.
Read more: Donald Trump convicted of falsifying documents in historic verdict
On July 1st, a ruling by the US Supreme Court made it possible for former President Donald Trump to claim immunity from prosecution on election subversion allegations relating to official conduct as president.
The court cited in its ruling that constitutional separation of powers means "the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."
Lower courts refused Trump's petition to dismiss the election subversion accusation against him, citing presidential immunity, and declined to rule on whether the alleged activity involved official acts.
In reaction to the ruling, President Joe Biden said that the move sets a "dangerous precedent," that the law is equally imposed on everyone in the US and that there were "no kings in America."
Read more: Biden says Supreme Court immunity ruling sets 'dangerous precedent'
![In a 2021 interview with Frontline by former US special representative James Jeffrey, he says he had "engaged with [HTS] via backchannels while serving in President Trump’s State Department. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Batoul Chamas)](https://alpha-en-media.almayadeen.net/media/image/2024/12/21/b4a69f2e-8682-43e4-9d37-49482b304ab3/3.png?v=2&format=webp "In a 2021 interview with Frontline by former US special representative James Jeffrey, he says he had \"engaged with [HTS] via backchannels while serving in President Trump’s State Department. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Batoul Chamas)")
