Wait, That's the Reasoning Behind Minnesota's Anti-ICE Lawsuit Against the Federal Governm...
A CNBC Host Delivered One Remark That Wrecked a Dem Senator's Entire Narrative...
A Reporter in the WH Press Pool Tried to Hide Who She Worked...
Chevron Showdown: Supreme Court Weighs Energy Lawfare and Rogue Courts
Why Free Speech Scares the Hell Out of the Left
A Tough Week for PBS As It Struggles With Defunding – and Struggles...
Mark Ruffalo and His Hollywood Comrades Turned Golden Globes Into Anti-ICE Protest
Aaron Rupar Worries the U.S. Won't Survive President Trump Enforcing Immigration Laws
Mortgage Rates Fall to Three-Year Low
Trump Says the US is 'Screwed' if Supreme Court Strikes Down His Liberation...
Radio Host Resigns After Calling for the Assassination of Vice President JD Vance
Elizabeth Warren Calls on Democrats to Double Down on Progressive Economics
Mark Kelly Files Lawsuit Against Pete Hegseth Following ‘Seditious Six' Censure Effort
Trump Signals Exxon Could Be Shut Out of Venezuela Oil Opportunities As the...
Progressive Squad Member Calls Trump a ‘Dictator,’ Demands ICE Be Abolished Following Deat...
Tipsheet

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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement