Shortly after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling on presidential immunity, one in which it found that presidents are not liable for official acts, a ruling in which Justice Clarence Thomas laid out, in his concurrence, a roadmap for taking down Jack Smith. Judge Cannon decided to pause deadlines in Jack Smith’s classified documents case against Trump in federal court in Florida.
As background, in the immunity case, SCOTUS ruled, “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct.” Continuing, it described why Trump’s conduct was official, ruling, “The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.”
Then, explaining that Trump was acting in an official capacity and thus protected by immunity, SCOTUS provided, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.”
While that was already a win for Trump, Justice Thomas built it into an even bigger one with his concurrence. In that concurrence, he argued that Special Counsel Smith’s appointment could violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. He added that there is another constitutional issue, as “any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”
In any case, Judge Cannon decided to pause several deadlines in the case and allow both sides to construct briefs, over the next two weeks, regarding the relevance of the SCOTUS immunity ruling on this case. Former President Trump’s team will likely try to argue that his possession of the documents should receive immunity, while Smith’s side will likely argue that it was an unofficial act and thus not protected.
Her ruling, which came out on Saturday, July 6, came after former President Trump’s legal team presented a motion on Friday, June 5, in which it sought “a partial stay of further proceedings” in the case “until President Trump’s motions based on Presidential immunity and the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses are resolved.”
Judge Cannon evidently agreed, writing, “A partial stay that pauses CIPA and other litigation is warranted based on the reasoning in Trump, and such a stay would be consistent with DOJ policies and practices that the Special Counsel’s Office claims to be bound by but is largely ignoring. Resolution of these threshold questions is necessary to minimize the adverse consequences to the institution of the Presidency arising from this unconstitutional investigation and prosecution. A partial stay is also appropriate to prevent further exploitation of judicial institutions and resources by Executive Branch personnel in connection with the shameful ongoing lawfare campaign.”
Julie Kelly added some details and context to the ruling in a post on X (formerly Twitter), writing, “Pending deadlines that are stayed relate to CIPA litigation and expert disclosures for trial. (Not gag order motion). Cannon set a briefing schedule on immunity matter thru this month. Very likely she’ll set a hearing sometime in August. We are still waiting for the hearing on scope of prosecution motion—originally set for last month but delayed due to other more urgent motions. My guess is that hearing will be indefinitely postponed until immunity question is resolved, which is unfortunate bc it addresses collusion btw Biden WH, NARA, and DOJ to concoct a docs case against Trump dating back to spring 2021.”
Watch Rep. Massie comment on the legality of Smith’s appointment here:
Featured image credit: By United States Department of Justice – This file has been extracted from another file, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=132849708
"*" indicates required fields