Judge Concerned Over Special Counsel Funding in Trump Case – Just Security
by Adam Klasfeld
June 24, 2024
Accountability, Appointments Clause, Donald Trump, Mar-a-Lago, Special Counsel Jack Smith
by Adam Klasfeld
June 24, 2024
Klasfeld’s reporting is part of Just Security’s Trump Trials Clearinghouse.
Over the course of two days of oral arguments, former President Donald Trump’s attorneys aimed at the 150-year-old foundations of the practice of appointing special counsels in the United States. The first day of arguments appeared to put Trump’s attorneys largely on the defensive.
Then, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s assistant appeared concerned that the judge was seriously considering Trump’s attack against their pot of “permanent, indefinite appropriations” from which they draw their financing. Such a challenge could force prosecutors to draw from another source within the Department of Justice, or face dismissal. Prosecutors emphasized that they have other funds to sustain the case.
Whether or not Trump ultimately prevails in challenging Smith’s constitutional authority to prosecute him, his defense may have come closer to achieving other goals over two days of oral arguments.
The first, and most frequently discussed, is delay.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has already indefinitely postponed Trump’s trial for alleged Espionage Act violations over his possession and retention of classified documents at the Mar-a-Lago resort, and this multi-day hearing over a longshot legal challenge has only pushed his reckoning in the case further off on the calendar.
As an added bonus for Trump, this delay comes in the form of conversation his lawyers want to keep in the public eye: Attorney General Merrick Garland’s role in supervising the special counsel and the money that funds Smith’s prosecution.
As for the broader battle, Trump’s overarching effort to declare Smith unconstitutionally appointed remains a longshot, but Cannon made a blockbuster remark on Monday suggesting that the “limitless” funding of the special counsel’s office implicates serious separation of powers concerns for her.
During the first day of arguments, prosecutor James Pearce noted most of the courts agree with the special counsel: Eight judges unanimously rejected the notion that attorneys general lack the power to appoint special counsels in four separate criminal cases. Moreover, the U.S. tradition of special prosecutors dates back roughly a century and a half to then-President Ulysses S. Grant in the 1870s, and though the forms and practices of these appointments have varied, never once has a judge considered them unconstitutional.
During the Watergate era, the Supreme Court unanimously signed off on the special prosecutor’s authority in ordering then-President Richard Nixon to turn over the subpoenaed tapes in 1974. Nixon did not dispute the special prosecutor’s authority, leading to enduring debate on whether the Supreme Court resolved a contested issue, but every subsequent criminal defendant who tried to treat that as a source of controversy failed. Special Counsel Robert Mueller successfully fended off attacks on his authority by Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone’s associate, Andrew Miller, and Concord Management, the Russian company behind what prosecutors described as the internet troll farms engaged in attacks on the 2016 presidential election.
More recently, President Joe Biden’s son Hunter unsuccessfully fought the constitutional authority of Special Counsel David Weiss.
Despite attempts by Trump’s attorneys to draw distinctions between those cases, Cannon appeared reluctant to buck this tradition, and she rebuked Trump’s attorney Emil Bove for likening a special counsel to a “shadow government.”
“That sounds very ominous: shadow government, but what do you really mean?” Cannon pointedly asked Bove, fresh off a stinging defeat in Trump’s New York criminal trial.
When Bove argued there was a risk in appointing someone with as much power as a special prosecutor without Senate confirmation, Cannon questioned whether that concern was “realistic” given the “well-defined regulations” surrounding these appointments.
“I don’t know if it’s really fair to throw aspersions in that direction,” Cannon said.
In all four of his criminal cases, Trump’s defense strategy has involved casting aspersions on prosecutors as partisan tools of President Biden.
Trump’s attorneys have not actually shown any ties between Biden and the special counsel — or for that matter, two local district attorneys in New York City and Atlanta over whom the White House has no jurisdiction. In Trump’s federal election interference case related to the Jan. 6th attacks, Smith’s prosecutors emphasized that there’s “no coordination” between them and the Biden administration, and Garland’s remarks when appointing a special counsel suggested that this was the point.
“Such an appointment underscores the Department’s commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters,” Garland declared over a year and a half ago, on Nov. 18, 2022.
Trump’s attorney Bove tried to use these words against Smith, pointing out that the U.S. Constitution requires the Senate’s advice and consent on appointees who aren’t “inferior officers.”
If Smith doesn’t ultimately report to Garland, Bove argued, that would make the special counsel an unconfirmed “superior officer.”
Pearce countered that all that matters in terms of the Constitution and precedent is that Garland has the power to supervise or even shut down the special counsel’s investigation. He declined to provide any details about what supervision Garland actually has over the investigation, including whether the attorney general signed off on Trump’s indictment.
Toward the end of the five-hour hearing on the first day, Cannon pressed Pearce to answer that question — and asked why such a disclosure would give prosecutors “heartburn.”
The Justice Department has not yet revealed whether Smith reported to Garland before Trump’s indictment, and Pearce declined to solve the mystery at the hearing.
The prosecutor did, however, provide a strong indication about the answer, noting that the Code of Federal Regulations requires special counsels to notify an attorney general of any “significant events.”
Due to Justice Department practices, Pearce would not put on the record whether the history-making federal indictment of a former U.S. president amounted to a “significant event.” The prosecutor’s lack of a “yes” or “no” answer also averted a potentially major headline.
In questioning Smith’s funding, Trump’s legal team took the opposite tactic: Bove argued that, if Smith is in fact accountable to Garland under well-established regulations promulgated by former Attorney General Janet Reno, then the special counsel is insufficiently “independent” to benefit from a permanent and indefinite appropriation.
On Monday, Cannon called out what she described as the “tension” between the two arguments.
“You’re saying the special counsel is taking inconsistent positions, but aren’t you just doing the same thing, flip-flopped?” the judge asked.
When responding to the argument, Pearce acknowledged neither side staked out a fully consistent position.
“I think that’s true of both sides of this matter,” Pearce said.
But Pearce added that was inherent in the special counsel’s role — and how Reno designed the regulations with an eye toward “striking the right balance between accountability and independence.”
However, Cannon appeared troubled by the “limitless” nature of the appropriations, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited. She noted that the Court found the appropriations clause authorizes the CFPB to draw public funds from a particular source ”in an amount not exceeding an inflation-adjusted cap.” Smith’s funding has no cap at all.
Performing an on-the-spot audit of the special counsel, Cannon took out one of Smith’s disclosures in court and asked for clarification.
Pearce urged Cannon to allow for further briefing if she is seriously considering granting Trump’s motion, and he said that the Justice Department is prepared to replace their appropriation from a separate $1 billion pool in their budget. He also emphasized the prosecution’s view that precedent and tradition favors them. Roger Stone and Hunter Biden both failed in attacks on the special counsel’s funding, though those cases are not binding on Cannon’s jurisdiction, and were decided before the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the CFPB’s funding scheme. Eight special counsels have drawn from permanent and indefinite appropriations, all without incident and with “congressional acquiescence,” Pearce noted.
“The doctrine of congressional acquiescence is not the most robust doctrine,” Cannon countered.
Trump’s attorneys, for their part, appear ready to exploit any tension they have ginned up through their challenge to Smith’s authority. On Monday afternoon, Cannon will hear arguments on whether to limit Trump’s ability to comment on the case. Last month, Trump falsely claimed that the FBI was authorized to shoot him during its search of Mar-a-Lago. Bove questioned whether Garland signed off on that search warrant request, as well, and if prosecutors must finance the case from another pool, Bove indicated there may be a political fallout.
Cannon declined to issue a decision from the bench by the time of publication.
As she considers her ruling, Cannon may have good reason to avoid straying too far out of step from her peers and tradition, particularly with potential appeals of any decision on the horizon, a process which has not turned out well for her thus far.
In the investigation predating Trump’s first federal indictment, the 11th Circuit reversed Cannon’s decision to block prosecutors from using certain evidence for their active investigation pending a review of the files the FBI seized for attorney-client privilege and executive privilege. Two of the judges who unanimously reversed her in the scathing ruling were also Trump appointees. That background, along with several of Cannon’s pre-trial decisions since that time, have amplified concerns about her experience and apparent deference to the president who appointed her. Cannon’s appointment rushed through the Senate along partisan lines during Trump’s lame-duck session.
On the cusp of the hearings, the New York Times published an extraordinary account of how Cannon insisted on keeping the case assigned to her docket, over the advice of two senior judges from her district. According to the Times, one was the Southern District of Florida’s Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, a George W. Bush appointee. The other was unidentified. The article did not articulate these judges’ concerns, though they presented perceptions of Cannon’s bias and her relative inexperience as context. Some legal analysts, like former FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann, have opined that another reversible ruling would hand prosecutors an attempt to try to disqualify her from the case, or simply pass off the indictment to the Southern District of Florida, for reassignment to another judge.
The structure of the hearing itself stoked a separate controversy: Cannon scheduled two days of arguments over an issue widely viewed in the legal community as Trump’s moonshot. What’s more, the judge signaled a willingness to consider that challenge seriously by allowing third parties to weigh in on the matter.
Those supporting Trump’s attack on the special counsel’s authority include a broad array of conservative figures and groups, including Citizens United, the group whose attack on Hillary Clinton produced the watershed Supreme Court campaign finance ruling; the Landmark Legal Foundation, and right-leaning attorneys Steven Calabresi, Seth Barrett Tillman, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and former federal judge Michael Mukasey. More than a dozen scholars and the group State Democracy Defenders Action oppose the motion, and their legal brief notes how rare it is for any third parties — for or against Trump — to have a hearing during pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case at all.
Citing the website Empirical SCOTUS, Trump’s opponents represented by attorney Matthew Seligman pointed to Supreme Court data for reference. From 1980 through 2015, SCOTUS permitted non-governmental third parties to participate in only nine out of 4,045 oral arguments as amicus curiae. Political groups weighing in on pre-trial hearings on a trial court level are even more unusual.
Recently, Cannon appears to have pulled up the drawbridge for amicus filings. She rejected a series of similar requests by a group of Republican attorneys general and a pro-Trump advocacy group affiliated with the former president’s adviser Stephen Miller.
Whether this represents a shift in Cannon’s handling of the case remains to be seen, and she did not immediately rule on the issue before her. Legal observers will be sure to closely watch not only how she rules, but also the timing of her decision and how it addresses Trump’s broader effort to delegitimize the special counsel appointed to prosecute him.
Accountability, Appointments Clause, Donald Trump, Mar-a-Lago, Special Counsel Jack Smith
by Rebecca Hamilton
Jun 24th, 2024
by René Urueña
Jun 20th, 2024
by George A. Lopez, Alistair Millar and Erica Moret
Jun 18th, 2024
by Just Security
Jun 18th, 2024
by Jessica Peake
Jun 17th, 2024
by Faiza Patel and Julian Melendi
Jun 14th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Siven Watt, Andrew Warren, Jacob Kovacs-Goodman and Francois Barrilleaux
Jun 14th, 2024
by Mykola Stetsenko
Jun 13th, 2024
by Elizabeth Goitein
Jun 11th, 2024
by Rebecca Hamilton
Jun 11th, 2024
by Lisa Curtis
Jun 10th, 2024
by Jan-Albert Hootsen
Jun 7th, 2024
by Ezequiel Heffes
Jun 7th, 2024
by Keegan McBride
Jun 6th, 2024
by Maria J. Stephan
Jun 5th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Siven Watt and Francois Barrilleaux
Jun 5th, 2024
by Sead Turčalo
Jun 3rd, 2024
by Rogier Bartels
May 31st, 2024
by Catherine Amirfar and Duncan Pickard
May 21st, 2024
by Anh-Thu Vo
May 17th, 2024
by Elene Kintsurashvili, Nathan Kohlenberg and Joshua Rudolph
May 15th, 2024
by Ryan Goodman, Jacob Glick, Mary B. McCord and Rupa Bhattacharyya
May 15th, 2024
by Luke Moffett
May 14th, 2024
by Ambassador (ret) Ian Kelly and David J. Kramer
May 14th, 2024
by Arthur Holland Michel
May 13th, 2024
by John Ramming Chappell
May 11th, 2024
by Yuliia Fysun
May 10th, 2024
by Mutasim Ali and Yonah Diamond
May 9th, 2024
by Katharine Fortin and Ezequiel Heffes
May 8th, 2024
by Joanna Naples-Mitchell and Annie Shiel
May 7th, 2024
by Lisa Homel and Ambassador Daniel Fried
May 3rd, 2024
by Tom Joscelyn and Ryan Goodman
May 2nd, 2024
by Sead Turčalo
May 1st, 2024
by Albert W. Alschuler
Apr 30th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Siven Watt and Francois Barrilleaux
Apr 28th, 2024
by Faiza Patel and Patrick C. Toomey
Apr 26th, 2024
by Noura Erakat and Josh Paul
Apr 24th, 2024
by Delaney Simon
Apr 24th, 2024
by Anna Tkachova
Apr 23rd, 2024
by Adam Klasfeld
Apr 22nd, 2024
by Clara Apt
Apr 18th, 2024
by Jonathan Hafetz
Apr 18th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Adam Klasfeld and Jacob Kovacs-Goodman
Apr 17th, 2024
by Eliav Lieblich
Apr 16th, 2024
by Adam Klasfeld
Apr 15th, 2024
by Adam Klasfeld
Apr 14th, 2024
by Evgenia Kara-Murza
Apr 10th, 2024
by Andrew Boyle
Apr 9th, 2024
by Ikechukwu Uzoma
Apr 8th, 2024
by George Croner
Apr 5th, 2024
by Noah Chauvin and Elizabeth Goitein
Apr 5th, 2024
by Ronald A. Brand
Apr 3rd, 2024
by Tom Joscelyn, Fred Wertheimer and Norman L. Eisen
Apr 2nd, 2024
by Natalia Kubesch
Apr 1st, 2024
by Adil Ahmad Haque
Mar 30th, 2024
by Jeremy Konyndyk
Mar 28th, 2024
by Rebecca Hamilton
Mar 27th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Andrew Warren and Siven Watt
Mar 27th, 2024
by Douglas London
Mar 21st, 2024
by Brian Finucane
Mar 19th, 2024
by Tom Dannenbaum
Mar 19th, 2024
by Leo Greenberg
Mar 18th, 2024
by Christopher S. Chivvis
Mar 15th, 2024
by Just Security
Mar 13th, 2024
by Just Security
Mar 13th, 2024
by Mieczysław (Mietek) Boduszyński and Jasmin Mujanović
Mar 13th, 2024
by Larry Lewis
Mar 12th, 2024
by Yuval Shany and Amichai Cohen
Mar 12th, 2024
by Beatrice Lindstrom
Mar 9th, 2024
by Bryan Frederick and Caitlin McCulloch
Mar 7th, 2024
by Brianna Rosen
Mar 1st, 2024
by Federica Paddeu
Mar 1st, 2024
by Lia van Broekhoven, Sangeeta Goswami, Floor Knoote and Thalia Malmberg
Feb 28th, 2024
by Preston Lim
Feb 27th, 2024
by Jenny Maddocks
Feb 26th, 2024
by Philippa Webb
Feb 26th, 2024
by Brian Finucane
Feb 23rd, 2024
by Ekaterina Kotrikadze
Feb 23rd, 2024
by Olga Butkevych, Rebecca Hamilton and Gregory Shaffer
Feb 22nd, 2024
by Ivan Horodyskyy
Feb 21st, 2024
by Maggie Mills, Thomas Poston and Oona A. Hathaway
Feb 20th, 2024
by Ambassador Daniel Fried
Feb 16th, 2024
by Matthew Levinger
Feb 13th, 2024
by Andrew Weissmann and Ryan Goodman
Feb 10th, 2024
by Eliav Lieblich
Feb 6th, 2024
by Oona A. Hathaway
Feb 5th, 2024
by Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany
Feb 1st, 2024
by Senator Ron Wyden
Jan 31st, 2024
by Richard Gowan
Jan 30th, 2024
by Just Security
Jan 26th, 2024
by Ryan Goodman and Siven Watt
Jan 26th, 2024
by Steven Katz and John Ramming Chappell
Jan 25th, 2024
by Vadim Prokhorov
Jan 24th, 2024
by Thomas Carothers
Jan 22nd, 2024
by Paloma van Groll
Jan 19th, 2024
by Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr. and David Bernell
Jan 12th, 2024
by Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr. and David Bernell
Jan 12th, 2024
by Sean Murphy
Jan 10th, 2024
by Joshua Matz and Laurence H. Tribe
Jan 10th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Matthew A. Seligman and Joshua Kolb
Jan 9th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Siven Watt, Andrew Warren, Jacob Kovacs-Goodman and Francois Barrilleaux
Jun 14th, 2024
by Clara Apt
Apr 18th, 2024
by Ryan Goodman, Justin Hendrix and Norman L. Eisen
Mar 14th, 2024
by Gwendolyn Whidden, Katherine Fang and Clara Apt
Sep 27th, 2023
by René Urueña
Jun 20th, 2024
by Jessica Peake
Jun 17th, 2024
by Just Security
Apr 5th, 2024
by Just Security
Jun 18th, 2024
by Allison Mollenkamp
Dec 4th, 2023
by Megan Corrarino
Feb 20th, 2024
by Joumana Seif
Feb 19th, 2024
by Gwendolyn Whidden
Oct 31st, 2023
by Brianna Rosen
Oct 18th, 2023
by Brianna Rosen
Sep 11th, 2023
by Just Security
Jul 17th, 2023
by Just Security
May 9th, 2023
by Paul R. Williams, Milena Sterio, Yvonne Dutton, Alexandra Koch, Lilian Waldock, Floriane Lavaud, Ashika Singh and Isabelle Glimcher
Feb 13th, 2023
by Eileen B. Hershenov and Ryan B. Greer
Jan 26th, 2023
by Ambassador Peter Mulrean (ret.) and William J. Hawk
Jan 4th, 2023
by Clara Apt and Katherine Fang
Nov 18th, 2022
by Amanda L. White Eagle
Oct 10th, 2022
by Brianna Rosen
Oct 25th, 2022
by Oona A. Hathaway
Sep 20th, 2022
by Tess Bridgeman and Brianna Rosen
Mar 24th, 2022
by Nasir A. Andisha and Marzia Marastoni
Aug 15th, 2022
by Megan Corrarino
Feb 18th, 2022
by Mary B. McCord
Jan 24th, 2022
by Emily Berman, Tess Bridgeman, Megan Corrarino, Ryan Goodman and Dakota S. Rudesill
Jan 20th, 2022
by Laura Brawley, Antara Joardar and Madhu Narasimhan
Oct 29th, 2021
by Leila Nadya Sadat
Sep 13th, 2021
by Tess Bridgeman, Rachel Goldbrenner and Ryan Goodman
Sep 7th, 2021
by Just Security
Jul 19th, 2021
by Kate Brannen
Jun 30th, 2021
by Fionnuala Ní Aoláin and Kate Brannen
Jun 14th, 2021
by Steven J. Barela and Mark Fallon
Jun 1st, 2021
by Christine Berger
May 29th, 2021
Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) is a Fellow at Just Security.
Send A Letter To The Editor
by Houssam al-Nahhas, Neema Rukunghu, Uliana Poltavets, "B" Zemen, Paras Shah, Audrey Balliette and Harrison Blank
Jun 24th, 2024
by Just Security
Jun 18th, 2024
by Sophie Richardson
Jun 17th, 2024
by Raquel Vázquez Llorente and Yvonne McDermott
Jun 17th, 2024
by Mykola Stetsenko
Jun 13th, 2024
by Seth Barrett Tillman
Jun 10th, 2024
by Lisa Curtis
Jun 10th, 2024
by Uliana Poltavets and Christian De Vos
Jun 6th, 2024
by Fabricio Guariglia
Jun 5th, 2024
by Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Siven Watt and Francois Barrilleaux
Jun 5th, 2024
by Sead Turčalo
Jun 3rd, 2024
by Melanie O'Brien
May 31st, 2024
Just Security is based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law.