French: Cannon adds to rulings ignoring Constitution’s text

In the documents case against Trump, Cannon takes 93 pages to make the law appear to say what it doesn’t.

By David French / The New York Times

The conservative legal movement has long prided itself on following the text of the Constitution and federal statutes. Originalism and textualism are both legal philosophies that prize the plain language of the words on the page. Any other approach has been derided as “living constitutionalism,” a philosophy that makes the law subject to the judge’s own preferences.

Yet we’re now seeing conservative judges issue rulings that seem to defy the text. Judge Aileen Cannon’s lengthy opinion dismissing special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case against Donald Trump is yet another example of this disturbing trend. Her ruling contradicts the clear language of the Constitution and the relevant statutes.

The basic legal framework of the case is simple to explain; the appointments clause of the Constitution vests in the president the power to appoint “officers of the United States,” but it also provides that Congress can vest the appointment of “inferior officers” in “heads of departments.” Trump’s team claims that Congress never vested the attorney general with the power to appoint Smith.

Federal law and Supreme Court precedent make that claim questionable. For example, federal law authorizes the attorney general to retain a “special assistant to the attorney general or special attorney” and also empowers the attorney general to “appoint officials” to “detect and prosecute crimes against the United States.” In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court cited those statutory provisions and declared that Congress had given the attorney general “the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties.”

Even though Cannon accepted Smith’s argument that he is an “inferior officer,” she still held that his appointment violated the appointments clause. The opinion is a long exercise in the use of structural and historical arguments to argue that the words in the Constitution, case law and the relevant statutes do not quite mean what they seem to so clearly say.

Her ruling is mistaken, but it is not frivolous. There isn’t a specific special counsel statute within the federal code. In cases such as Trump v. Anderson (which blocked Colorado’s attempt to remove Trump from the ballot) and Trump v. United States (which granted him sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts), the Supreme Court used structural concerns about the balance of power between the states and federal government, or between Congress and the president, to issue rulings at odds with the actual constitutional text.

The Supreme Court and the lower courts should consider the constitutional structure of our government when rendering their rulings, but when both the Constitution and the relevant statutes speak clearly, the judge’s role is to apply the text, not to engage in linguistic and historical gymnastics to explain it away.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Friday, July 11

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

2024 Presidential Election Day Symbolic Elements.
Editorial: Retain Escamilla, Binda on Lynnwood City Council

Escamilla was appointed a year ago. Binda is serving his first term.

The Buzz: What the mainstream media don’t want you to know

They’re not, but we just liked how that looked at the top of the page and thought you’d read it.

Schwab: Yes, your Medicaid’s gone but you can gloat over gators

What Trump is taking from the social safety net, he’s adding to the cruelty against working immigrants.

Congress’ passage of tax cuts bill marked shameful day for GOP

This July 3 was one of the most shameful days in American… Continue reading

Tell senators to keep vaccine aid by rejecting recissions bill

The Senate could vote on a Trump administration-proposed rescissions package before July… Continue reading

Too much risk, noise and annoyance with fireworks

Let’s hear it for all the “kids” who like to endanger life… Continue reading

A Volunteers of America Western Washington crisis counselor talks with somebody on the phone Thursday, July 28, 2022, in at the VOA Behavioral Health Crisis Call Center in Everett, Washington. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: Dire results will follow end of LGBTQ+ crisis line

The Trump administration will end funding for a 988 line that serves youths in the LGBTQ+ community.

toon
Editorial: Using discourse to get to common ground

A Building Bridges panel discussion heard from lawmakers and students on disagreeing agreeably.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Friday, June 27, 2025. The sweeping measure Senate Republican leaders hope to push through has many unpopular elements that they despise. But they face a political reckoning on taxes and the scorn of the president if they fail to pass it. (Kent Nishimura/The New York Times)
Editorial: GOP should heed all-caps message on tax policy bill

Trading cuts to Medicaid and more for tax cuts for the wealthy may have consequences for Republicans.

Comment: About that Social Security email sent to retirees

It was uncharacteristically political, inaccurate about the BBB’s benefits and likely to cause mistrust of the SSA.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, July 10

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.