The U.S. Supreme Court has an enormous job to do in the name of freedom.
On Wednesday, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese joined law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson in submitting an amicus brief — an impartial advisory statement — to the Supreme Court.
The brief asserted that Jack Smith did not acquire his purported authority as special counsel in a legal or constitutional manner and therefore lacks standing to represent the United States in front of a federal court.
In other words, the Biden administration again has violated fundamental law in its ongoing persecution of former President Donald Trump.
On Nov. 18, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel to harass Trump and others over their objections to the presidential election of 2020.
On Aug. 1, the former president and leading GOP contender in the 2024 presidential race was indicted on four felony charges related to his election challenges and the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incursion.
Last week, Smith submitted a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari asking the justices to rule on the question of presidential immunity. Could Trump be prosecuted for “crimes committed while in office”?
The word “alleged” should now appear before the phrase “special counsel” in Smith’s case because Meese and his colleagues questioned the very validity of Smith’s appointment.
Meese, who served as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, co-authored a formidable brief.
Should the indictments against Trump be dropped?
In fact, even the framing of the question at hand highlighted the entire proceeding’s lawlessness.
“Whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States, which jurisdictional requirement must exist at all stages of litigation, and which cannot be waived, in filing his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this Court?” the question read.
According to Meese and colleagues, “private citizen Jack Smith” has no business before a federal court.
“This Court should reject Mr. Smith’s request for certiorari before judgment for the simple reason that he lacks authority to ask for it,” the brief began. “Nor does he have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution.”
The problem started when Garland “exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority by purporting to appoint Smith.”
Significantly, Meese and colleagues did not reject the validity of special counsels in general. In fact, the brief named four recent special counsels — including John Durham — who held their offices by proper appointment.
They then explained what’s different with Smith’s appointment in the brief’s most important paragraph.
“What federal statutes and the Constitution do not allow, however, is for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen, who has never been confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title ‘Special Counsel.’ That is what happened on November 18, 2022. That appointment was unlawful, as are all the legal actions that have flowed from it, including citizen Smith’s current attempt to obtain a ruling from this Court,” the paragraph read.
Meese Amicus Brief by The Western Journal
The repetition of that French Revolution-like phrase — “citizen Smith” — hammered home the crucial point. Jack Smith has no lawful authority.
“Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” Meese and colleagues concluded.
“Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos,” they wrote.
Wednesday on X, prominent conservatives took notice.
Mike Davis, former law clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, posted a copy of the amicus brief.
“Biden’s drive to imprison Trump for life instead of facing him on November 5, 2024 just hit a potentially fatal legal roadblock: 1. Was Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel even legal? 2. Do the federal courts even have jurisdiction to proceed?” Davis wrote in an accompanying post.
🚨
Biden’s drive to imprison Trump for life instead of facing him on November 5, 2024 just hit a potentially fatal legal roadblock:
1. Was Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel even legal?
2. Do the federal courts even have jurisdiction to proceed?https://t.co/MA67Bxja3Q pic.twitter.com/36WrcS7QYg
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) December 21, 2023
Podcaster Julie Kelly, who regularly comments on legal developments related to Trump and the Capitol incursion, called the brief a “stunner.”
“Court filings coming fast and furious this week but this is a stunner. Former AG Edwin Meese asks SCOTUS to deny Jack Smith’s petition to expedite appeal of immunity ruling, argues Merrick Garland broke the law by appointing a special counsel w/o statutory authority,” Kelly said along with highlighted portions of the brief.
Court filings coming fast and furious this week but this is a stunner.
Former AG Edwin Meese asks SCOTUS to deny Jack Smith’s petition to expedite appeal of immunity ruling, argues Merrick Garland broke the law by appointing a special counsel w/o statutory authority: pic.twitter.com/bQotoykndS
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) December 21, 2023
Author and veteran Sean Parnell also commented on the brief’s significance.
“This seems to be a huge deal. So essentially Smith should have been nominated by the President & confirmed by the Senate in order to wield the authority he has thus far. This whole process is rotten to the core,” Parnell said.
This seems to be a huge deal.
So essentially Smith should have been nominated by the President & confirmed by the Senate in order to wield the authority he has thus far.
This whole process is rotten to the core. https://t.co/vqn1AJj8u4
— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellUSA) December 21, 2023
Other social media users saw the appointment question as part of a disturbing pattern.
“Is anything this regime does that’s within the bounds of law?” one person said.
Is anything this regime does that’s within the bounds of law?
— Sir Crunchwrap EXTREME™️🤌 (@XeyedNpainless_) December 21, 2023
No, in fact. The regime’s behavior toward its political opponents does not fall within any legal bounds.
Indeed, one shudders to realize that the fate of our vanishing constitutional republic now rests with the Supreme Court.
Already, that court must reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s tyrannical attempt to remove Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot.
Now, the justices also must address the problem of Smith’s improper appointment.
Confirming the objections set forth by Meese and colleagues would stop Smith and his lawless co-conspirators in their tracks. It would also help restore many Americans’ faith in the future of freedom.
