In a notable development at the Supreme Court, former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, collaborating with law experts Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, submitted a persuasive amicus curiae brief. The document challenges the constitutional validity of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland. They argue that appointing Smith, a private citizen, contradicts the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The brief, presented on Wednesday, asserts that Smith, lacking federal government authority, metaphorically resembles “a modern example of the naked emperor.” They contend that Smith possesses no more legal capacity to represent the United States in the Supreme Court than prominent public figures like Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos.
This legal intervention comes in response to Smith’s motion to expedite the Supreme Court’s review of former President Donald Trump’s case, which involves claims of presidential immunity related to January 6, 2021, events. Smith has brought criminal charges connected to these events.
Meese, along with Calabresi and Lawson, emphasizes the alleged illegitimacy of Smith’s appointment, stating it should be a decisive factor in dismissing Smith’s petition for expedited review. They point out that Smith was appointed for investigating potential legal violations related to the 2020 presidential election and the subsequent transfer of power, including inquiries involving Trump.
They critique Garland’s statutory basis for Smith’s appointment, arguing no existing statute or constitutional provision justifies appointing a private individual as Special Counsel with extensive criminal law enforcement powers. Additionally, they dispute the absence of a specific statute authorizing the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel without presidential appointment and Senate confirmation.
The brief highlights that, according to the Appointments Clause, the appointment of inferior officers by department heads is permissible only if explicitly directed by Congress through a statute. They assert no such statute exists for the Special Counsel’s role. Meese, who served under President Reagan, further argues that if the Special Counsel position were legitimate, it would classify as a superior officer role, necessitating presidential appointment and Senate confirmation regardless of statutory provisions.
This legal challenge arises as Smith seeks an expedited Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s immunity claims in the case involving allegations of attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. Smith’s request aims for the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction before lower federal courts have fully adjudicated the matter, marking a significant moment in the ongoing legal and constitutional debate.