U.S. Supreme Court
Jul. 29, 2024
Judicial misstep: How a technicality on special counsel’s appointment could undermine justice
The court found that Special Counsel was not an “inferior officer” under the Appointments Clause, as opposed to a “principal officer” requiring Presidential nomination and Senatorial consent. The court also noted that the Special Counsel’s powers were broader than a traditional U.S. Attorney as he is permitted to exercise his investigatory powers across multiple districts within the same investigation.
Philip M. Howe
Howe is a member of the California and Massachusetts State Bars, having last practiced in California in 2019.
Judicial misstep: How a technicality on special counsel’s appointment could undermine justice
On July 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach, FL dismissed the Indictment against Donald J. Trump because Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
United States of America v. Donald Trump,...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In