A US federal court on Monday dismissed all charges against Donald Trump in a case alleging the former president mishandled classified documents after leaving office. The ruling centered on Senior Counsel Jack Smith, whose appointment to prosecute the case was ruled unconstitutional.

In November 2022, US Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to serve as special counsel with oversight of two investigations related to Trump. Clear conflict-of-interest issues would have marred prosecutorial efforts by the Justice Department of current US President Joe Biden, Trump’s two-time opponent for the White House. In such politically sensitive cases, or where it would otherwise be in the public interest to do so, US law provides for the appointment of a special counsel — an independent officer who is authorized to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute politically divisive allegations.

First, Smith was tasked with investigating whether Trump attempted to interfere with the 2020 election that ended his presidency, and the subsequent transfer of power to Biden. Second, he was to continue an investigation that had turned up multiple classified documents in various unsecured locations throughout Trump’s primary Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago. In the summer of 2023, Smith unveiled indictments in both investigations.

Trump moved to dismiss the classified documents indictment, arguing Smith’s appointment by Garland violated the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution, which states in relevant part that the president has the authority to:

…nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate … appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The clause serves as a check on executive power by ensuring key government officials are vetted by both the executive and legislative branches, thereby preventing either branch from wielding unchecked authority to fill key positions. Notably, its use of the general term “all other Officers of the United States,” paired with the specific use of “such inferior Officers, as [Congress thinks] proper” leaves room for interpretation.

If Smith were considered among the “other” group, his appointment would have required presidential nomination and legislative consent. If he were in the “inferior” group, the requirements could be more flexible. Smith argued he qualified as an “inferior” officer, thus validating his appointment by the US Attorney General.

In Monday’s ruling, District Judge Aileen Cannon reluctantly, and only for limited purposes, accepted Smith’s claim that as special counsel he was an “inferior” officer, but found his appointment violated the clause regardless:

the Appointments and Appropriations challenges as framed in the Motion raise the following threshold question: is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no. None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment … gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith. Nor do the Special Counsel’s strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit authority persuade otherwise. … The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers.

Cannon suggested that for such an appointment to be valid, the Special Counsel would need to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, or Congress would need to pass new legislation consistent with the Appointments Clause.

Trump’s latest court victory follows a Supreme Court decision granting him sweeping prosecutorial immunity for acts considered to be in the outer bounds of his official duties as president. In May, he was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. US law does not prevent a convicted felon from holding the nation’s highest office. Trump has long maintained that all cases pending against him are the product of political persecution. Following the release of Monday’s decision, he wrote via social media that all cases pending against him should be dismissed:

The Democrat Justice Department coordinated ALL of these Political Attacks, which are an Election Interference conspiracy against Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME. Let us come together to END all Weaponization of our Justice System, and Make America Great Again!

The news comes days after Trump was shot in an apparent assassination attempt.

His chief opponent in the 2024 White House race, Biden, was separately accused of mishandling classified materials after his tenure as vice president to Barack Obama. The Justice Department announced its decision not to prosecute earlier this year. That case was also led by a special counsel, Robert K. Hur, who concluded prosecution would be inappropriate because the evidence failed to establish the president’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.