A former U.S. attorney general just told the U.S. Supreme Court that the Biden administration's appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel is unconstitutional.
Fox News reports that former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese and two constitutional law scholars did so in an amicus curiae brief that they submitted to the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The outlet reports:
Meese, along with law professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, filed a friend-of-the-court brief Wednesday to present the case that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith – a private citizen - is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
Accordingly, Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson argue that the justices ought to reject any requests Smith makes.
Smith is the man whom President Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) has chosen to target former President Donald Trump.
Smith has brought two criminal cases against Trump: one in Florida - in which Smith alleges that Trump mishandled classified documents when he left the White House - and one in Washington, D.C. - in which Smith alleges that Trump interfered with Congress's certification of the 2020 presidential election's electoral college results.
Trump has maintained his innocence, and the former president insists that Smith's motivation is political - that Biden is essentially using Smith to try to derail Trump's presidential campaign. Trump is currently the overwhelming favorite to face off against Biden in 2024.
Smith has been helping Trump to make the argument that Smith's prosecution of the former president is political. Smith, for example, has been attempting to make the cases go as fast as possible in the hope of convicting Trump before the 2024 presidential election.
To this end, Smith recently petitioned the Supreme Court to decide whether or not Trump's claim of presidential immunity ought to be allowed. It is this petition that Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson argue that the justices ought to reject.
The reason Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson believe the Supreme Court ought to reject Smith's petition is that, in their view, Garland's appointment of him as special counsel is unconstitutional.
"Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor," they wrote.
They added, "Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos."
Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson go on to argue that none of the statutes cited by Garland for Smith's appointment - or any other statutory or constitutional provision - "authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel."
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, did reject Smith's petition. It is unclear whether or not Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson's brief played any role in the rejection.
