Gambiaj.com – (ATLANTA, Georgia) – In a critical move, Special Counsel Jack Smith has requested the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate the documents case against former President Donald Trump. In a forceful 58-page brief, Smith’s team repeatedly accused U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon of making significant legal errors when she dismissed the case, ruling that Smith had been unlawfully appointed.

The brief, filed just before the deadline, marks the first formal response from Smith since Judge Cannon’s controversial July ruling. Cannon had sided with Trump’s challenge to the legal basis of Smith’s appointment as special counsel and questioned the funding of his office. The decision raised eyebrows among legal experts, as challenges to special counsel authority have consistently failed in court for decades, particularly following the 1974 Supreme Court ruling on the investigation into former President Richard Nixon.

“The Attorney General validly appointed the Special Counsel, who is also properly funded,” Smith’s team wrote in their appeal. “In ruling otherwise, the district court deviated from binding Supreme Court precedent, misconstrued the statutes that authorized the Special Counsel’s appointment, and took inadequate account of the longstanding history of Attorney General appointments of special counsels.”

The brief takes particular issue with Cannon’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s previous review of special counsel authority, which she dismissed as “dicta“—a remark made in passing that does not hold binding legal authority. Smith’s team strongly disagreed, asserting that every other court to consider the issue has deemed the Supreme Court’s language on special counsel authority as binding precedent.

“Apart from the district court below, every court to consider the question has concluded that the Supreme Court’s determination that those statutes authorized the Attorney General to appoint the Watergate Special Prosecutor was necessary to the decision that a justiciable controversy existed and therefore constitutes a holding that binds lower courts,” the brief argued.

The filing warns that if Cannon’s ruling is upheld, it could have far-reaching implications, jeopardizing the longstanding operation of the Justice Department and calling into question hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch. Smith’s team also briefly addressed Cannon’s conclusion that the funding for his office was unlawfully granted, stating that her decision on the legality of his appointment was the flawed foundation for that determination.

“Because its premise was wrong, so was its conclusion,” they concluded.

While the brief does not explicitly call for Cannon’s removal from the case, the 11th Circuit Court has the authority to make that decision independently. The outcome of this appeal could set a significant legal precedent and shape the future of special counsel investigations in the United States.