Former President Donald Trump’s legal team is pushing for the dismissal of Jack Smith’s election-related case against him, claiming Smith’s appointment was illegal and should not be publicly funded.
The legal tension between Trump and special counsel Smith has been rising, especially after Judge Tanya Chutkan released a redacted version of Smith’s detailed evidence in early October.
Trump’s lawyers argue that the “unjust case” breaches the Constitution’s clauses on appointments and funding, alleging Smith wasn’t lawfully appointed.
In their motion, they assert, “Even if Smith is a valid officer, which he is not, he is a principal rather than an inferior officer and his appointment is plainly unconstitutional because he was never nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate.”
The claim stems from a perceived lack of oversight over Smith’s “extremely broad jurisdiction.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith in late 2022, which Trump’s team contends violated constitutional clauses, labeling Smith a “private citizen” tasked with targeting Trump amid his presidential campaign without proper legal grounds.
In mid-July, Judge Aileen Cannon agreed with Trump’s attorneys on another case against him, dismissing it due to Smith’s purported unlawful role as special prosecutor.
Trump’s filing referenced Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion on presidential immunity, questioning the legality of creating an office of the Special Counsel without legislative approval.
Trump’s legal representatives also highlighted a recent comment by President Joe Biden, who controversially suggested Trump be “locked up,” later clarifying it was meant politically.
The team further demands that Smith and his office be barred from accessing additional public funds, arguing they violated financial rules by taking more than $20 million—plus $16 million from other Department of Justice sources—without statutory permission to undermine Trump during a crucial campaign period.
They argue that Smith’s office has been “using Treasury funds unauthorized by law,” spending in a manner they claim breaches legal standards.
