Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese and constitutional law scholars, including Gary Lawson and Steven Calabresi, have filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the petition of special counsel Jack Smith, arguing that Smith’s appointment is unconstitutional. The 32-page brief contends that Smith’s nationwide jurisdiction, exceeding that of Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys, is unconstitutional, as he was not nominated and confirmed for the specific role of Special Counsel.
Calabresi, a Republican who criticized Trump after the Capitol riot, previously expressed concerns over Smith’s appointment exceeding constitutional bounds. Trump’s legal team has also filed a brief requesting procedural delays until a lower court addresses the constitutional concerns surrounding Smith’s appointment.
The legal debate centers on whether Trump, as a former president, is immune from prosecution for alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election results. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to accept or reject Smith’s petition will have significant implications for the interpretation of executive powers and the validity of special counsel appointments.
More Read
This legal challenge intersects with broader discussions about accountability for political actions and the constitutional limits on prosecuting former presidents. The coming weeks will focus on the Supreme Court’s response to the arguments presented by Meese and scholars, shaping the trajectory of the case against Trump and influencing the future balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary.
