Dems' Rejoicing Over the Supreme Court Ruling on Trump's Tariffs Got Wrecked...by CNN?
'Out of Nowhere' Canadians Are Now Poorer Than Alabamians. The Reactions Have Been...
Student ‘ICE Out’ Protests Go Viral Across US – Now Schools are Taking...
Here's Why the US Is Losing Farms at an Alarming Rate
This State Is Getting Closer to Eliminating Property Taxes
‘Privileged, White, and Well-Off’? Canada’s MAiD Program Just Got Even More Disturbing
Feds Indict Six More in Venezuelan Gang's High-Tech ATM Heist – Total Hits...
Michigan Auto Dealer Management Firm Pays $1.5M to Settle PPP Fraud Claims
Here's How Mamdani's Snow Shoveling Program Is Reveals the Leftist Lie on Voter...
Toxic Chemical Poured on Trump-Kennedy Center Ice Rink, Performance Canceled
Lawmakers Probe Potomac River Sewage Spill
Ukrainian Man Ran 'Upworksell.com' to Sell Stolen Identities for Overseas IT Workers, Cour...
The DOJ Has Canned the Most Liberal Immigration Judge in America
Fake Immigration Law Firm Busted in Brooklyn Federal Indictment
It's True: Gavin Newsom's California Government Has Paid Protestors Over $100 Million
Tipsheet

Clarence Thomas Led the Way to Jack Smith's Demise

Clarence Thomas Led the Way to Jack Smith's Demise
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

On July 1, 2024 the Supreme Court ruled U.S. presidents have immunity for official acts with President Donald Trump at the center of the case. 

In his concurrence in the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas made the argument that Special Counsel appointments could broadly be unconstitutional, but especially if they are not appointed by Congress. 

Advertisement

"It is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office 'established by Law,' as required by the Constitution. When the Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel, he did not identify any statute that clearly creates such an office," Clarence wrote. "None of the statutes cited by the Attorney General appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose."

"Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause. For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Even if he is an inferior officer, the Attorney General could appoint him without Presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation only if 'Congress . . . by law vest[ed] the Appointment' in the Attorney General as a 'Hea[d] of Department,'" Thomas continued. 

Advertisement

Related:

2024 ELECTION

"So, the Special Counsel’s appointment is invalid unless a statute created the Special Counsel’s office and gave the Attorney General the power to fill it 'by Law.' Whether the Special Counsel’s office was 'established by Law' is not a trifling technicality. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office," he argued. 

Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland outside of that constitutional standard, resulting in U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissing the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos