Congressman Massie Challenges Constitutionality of Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment

During a House Judiciary hearing, Representative Thomas Massie questioned Attorney General Merrick Garland on the legality of Jack Smith's appointment as Special Counsel, citing concerns over its constitutional validity.

During a House Judiciary hearing on Tuesday, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie grilled Attorney General Merrick Garland on the constitutionality of appointing Jack Smith as Special Counsel. Massie argued that Smith's appointment violates the Appointments Clause, which requires certain federal officers to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate.

Massie cited amicus briefs filed by former Attorney General Ed Meese in lawsuits involving former President Donald Trump. Meese argued that appointing Smith, a private citizen, as Special Counsel is illegal because he lacks the authority of a federal government official.

Meese's briefs contend that Smith has no more authority to represent the United States in court than celebrities such as Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos. He maintains that Smith's appointment is so flawed that it should disqualify him from pursuing the investigation into Trump.

Massie also questioned Garland's authority to create the office of Special Counsel without Congressional authorization. He argued that this action violates the principle of separation of powers and infringes on Congress's exclusive power to establish federal offices.

Garland defended his authority to appoint Special Counsel, citing regulations in place for over 30 years under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He referred to a statute that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel, but Massie argued that this statute does not specifically empower the Attorney General to appoint private citizens like Smith.

Massie's concerns echo those raised by Justice Clarence Thomas during Supreme Court oral arguments over Trump's presidential immunity. Thomas questioned whether the office of Special Counsel requires an act of Congress and noted the lack of statutory authority for the Attorney General to make such an appointment.

The debate over the constitutionality of Smith's appointment is likely to continue, with implications for the ongoing investigations into Trump and potential future appointments of Special Counsel.