
Special Counsel Jack Smith resigns after failed Trump prosecutions, raising questions about accountability and the future of presidential investigations.
At a Glance
- Jack Smith resigned after bringing two unsuccessful federal prosecutions against former President Donald Trump
- Smith’s appointment as special counsel was ruled unconstitutional by Judge Aileen Cannon
- Trump’s reelection rendered the prosecutions moot due to DOJ policy against prosecuting sitting presidents
- The release of Smith’s final report is currently blocked, pending legal challenges
- Congress may address the constitutional basis of special counsel appointments in the future
Smith’s Resignation and Failed Prosecutions
Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed to investigate former President Donald Trump, has resigned from the Department of Justice following two unsuccessful federal prosecutions. Smith, a former war crimes prosecutor, faced significant legal battles with Trump’s team but ultimately lost in both district court and the Supreme Court. His resignation was expected, as he had intended to leave before Trump’s inauguration on January 20.
The prosecutions against Trump became moot after his political victory, as the Justice Department’s policy prohibits prosecuting a sitting president. In 2023, Smith had filed two cases against Trump: one in Florida for mishandling classified documents, and another in Washington for allegedly plotting to overturn the 2020 election results.
Trump prosecutor Jack Smith resigns from Justice Department – https://t.co/1wETiLaMfk
— Jonathan Landay (@JonathanLanday) January 11, 2025
Constitutional Challenges and Legal Setbacks
In a significant development, Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Trump appointee, ruled that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. The ruling was based on the appointments clause, arguing that the Attorney General cannot appoint a special counsel without Senate consent. This decision has far-reaching implications for the role of special counsels in future investigations.
“A Trump-appointed judge, Aileen Cannon, finally ruled that the office was unconstitutional.” – Rick Moran
Attorney General Merrick Garland is appealing Cannon’s ruling, setting the stage for a prolonged legal battle over the constitutionality of special counsel appointments. The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications for future high-profile investigations and the ability to hold presidents accountable.
Uncertainty Surrounding Smith’s Final Report
The release of Jack Smith’s final report on the Trump investigations is currently in limbo. Judge Cannon has temporarily blocked its public release, sparking debates about transparency and the public’s right to information. The report consists of two volumes: one on Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and another on his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
“The special counsel completed his work and submitted his final confidential report on Jan. 7, 2025, and separated from the department on Jan. 10.” – Judge Cannon
The Justice Department has agreed to withhold the classified documents volume while criminal proceedings against Trump’s associates are pending. However, prosecutors intend to release the election interference volume and have appealed to lift the injunction preventing its release. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an emergency defense bid to block the release of the election interference report but maintained the injunction for three days post-resolution.
Special counsel Jack Smith has resigned from the Justice Department after submitting his report on President-elect Donald Trump, amid legal wrangling over how much of the document can be made public https://t.co/L6o3pRBlm3
— WFAE (@WFAE) January 12, 2025
Implications for Future Investigations and Accountability
The resignation of Jack Smith and the constitutional challenges to his appointment raise important questions about the future of presidential investigations and accountability. The special counsel statute allowed Smith broad investigative powers, but the ruling against his appointment may limit such powers in the future.
As the legal battles continue, there are several potential avenues for Smith’s report to become public, including through Congress, FOIA requests, or litigation. However, Trump’s former co-defendants argue against sharing the report publicly, citing potential prejudice.
The events surrounding Smith’s resignation and the challenges to special counsel appointments highlight the need for Congress to address the constitutional basis of these roles. As the nation moves forward, the balance between presidential accountability and the limits of investigative power will likely remain a subject of intense debate and scrutiny.
Sources:
- Jack Smith, Who Led Prosecutions of Trump, Resigns – The New York Times
- Jack Smith has resigned from the justice department, after submitting his Trump report : NPR
- Special counsel Jack Smith has resigned after submitting his Trump report, Justice Department says
- Trump Nemesis Jack Smith Resigns From DoJ – PJ Media