Special counsel Jack Smith’s opening brief appealing the dismissal of former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case is due on Aug. 27, according to a briefing notice Thursday from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Smith last week filed an official notice of appeal after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, in a surprise decision, dismissed Trump’s classified documents case.
Cannon dismissed the case on the grounds that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional because he was not appointed by the president or confirmed by Congress.
In a statement following the ruling, a spokesperson with the special counsel’s office said, “The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel.”
Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally, March 9, 2024, in Rome Ga.
Mike Stewart/AP
Based on the briefing schedule in the court’s notice, Trump and his co-defendants’ response to Smith’s opening brief will be due around late September, and Smith’s reply will be due in mid-October.
Trump pleaded not guilty last year to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information and took steps to thwart the government’s efforts to get the documents back.
Trump has denied all charges and denounced the probe as a political witch hunt.
The deadline for filing a brief appealing the dismissal of Trump classified documents has been set for August 27th by the court. This decision comes after a controversial ruling that dismissed a case seeking the release of classified documents related to former President Donald Trump.
The case, which was brought by a group of journalists and transparency advocates, sought to obtain records related to Trump’s handling of classified information during his time in office. The group argued that the public has a right to know how Trump handled sensitive information and whether he may have compromised national security.
However, the case was dismissed by the court, citing national security concerns and the potential harm that could come from releasing classified documents. The ruling was met with criticism from transparency advocates, who argue that the public has a right to know how their government officials are handling sensitive information.
In response to the dismissal, the group has announced that they will be filing an appeal by the August 27th deadline. They are hopeful that a higher court will overturn the ruling and allow for the release of the classified documents.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between government transparency and national security concerns. While it is important to protect sensitive information, it is also crucial for the public to have access to information about how their government officials are conducting themselves.
As the deadline for filing the appeal approaches, all eyes will be on the court to see how they handle this important case. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for government transparency and accountability.
