How Clarence Thomas Cleared Trump’s Path in Classified Docs Case
Introduction:
A federal district court dismissed the indictment against Donald Trump for taking classified documents when he left the White House, ruling on Monday that the special counsel who indicted the former president was not constitutionally appointed. This ruling, made by Judge Aileen Cannon, is expected to be appealed but will likely delay significant progress in the case until after the November election.
The Precedent Challenge:
To reach her decision, Cannon had to navigate around long-standing Supreme Court precedent regarding independent prosecutors. She argued that this precedent was not binding and referred to it as mere “dictum.” Interestingly, this approach aligns with the recent opinion of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who addressed Trump’s prosecution for his role in the January 6 insurrection. Although the constitutionality of the special counsel’s appointment was not at issue in that case, Thomas’s opinion provided a roadmap for Cannon’s ruling.
Cannon’s Citing of Thomas’s Opinion:
Cannon cited Thomas’s concurring opinion three times in her ruling, which drew attention from legal experts. Law professor Leah Litman tweeted that Justice Thomas’s “Cannon-currence” influenced the outcome of the Trump immunity case by suggesting that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed. This alignment of views between Thomas and Cannon led to what some consider a flawed decision.
The Nixon Precedent:
The 1973 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Nixon established the constitutionality of independent prosecutors and special counsel. In this case, President Richard Nixon attempted to obstruct a grand jury investigation into the Watergate break-in. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Nixon had to comply with a subpoena issued by a special prosecutor appointed in accordance with the Constitution and federal law.
Confirmation of Nixon Precedent:
For decades, the Nixon ruling has been seen as confirmation of the constitutionality of independent prosecutors and special counsel appointed by the attorney general for politically sensitive cases. In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed this understanding when it rejected a challenge to Robert Mueller’s appointment to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. The court specifically rejected the argument that a section of the Nixon decision was mere “dictum.”
Thomas’s Endorsement of the Dictum Theory:
However, Justice Thomas recently endorsed the theory that the relevant section in the Nixon decision was not binding precedent. This endorsement occurred during oral arguments for the Supreme Court immunity case related to Trump’s involvement in the January 6 insurrection. Although Trump did not challenge the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith in that case, Thomas raised the appointment issue during arguments.
Thomas’s Concurring Opinion:
On July 1, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that Trump had presumptive immunity for any “official acts” leading up to the insurrection. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion, expressing concerns about the constitutionality of special counsel appointments like Smith’s. He criticized the Nixon decision for its lack of analysis of relevant statutes and called for lower courts to address these essential questions before proceeding with prosecutions.
Cannon’s Decision:
In her ruling, Judge Cannon followed Thomas’s analysis, dismissing the unanimous determination of the D.C. Circuit that the Nixon decision remained binding precedent. This alignment between Thomas and Cannon has drawn attention from legal experts. Law professor Melissa Murray tweeted that Thomas “laid the table and Judge Cannon took a seat,” suggesting that Thomas’s opinion influenced Cannon’s decision.
Conclusion:
The dismissal of the indictment against Donald Trump for taking classified documents highlights the impact of Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent opinions on the constitutionality of special counsel appointments. While Cannon’s ruling is likely to be appealed, it raises questions about the validity of long-standing Supreme Court precedent and the potential implications for future cases involving independent prosecutors and special counsel.
