Justice Thomas Takes Shots at Jack Smith in Immunity Decision

(TargetDailyNews.com) – In the written ruling for the Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity, one justice had questions about the legality of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel: he challenged whether there was an act of law that authorized his appointment.

On July 1st, the high court ruled that Trump is immune from prosecution for his official acts as president under the Constitution. They left some room for prosecution of unofficial acts, and lower courts will have to parse what constitutes official versus unofficial. Justice Clarence Thomas added a concurring opinion that queried whether or not there was a legal basis to Jack Smith’s appointment, and if there isn’t, his entire prosecution of Trump is outside the law.

Thomas writes that while much has been made of “no one being above the law,” he pointed out that immunity for officials’ acts is quite literally the law and it exists so the president has the legal authority to do what he believes is best for the country without worrying about prosecution down the line. Thomas said the Constitution calls for “an energetic executive” which is necessary to protect freedom and the country.

Thomas then said that there were “serious questions” regarding Smith’s appointment, highlighting that Attorney General Merrick Garland had no legal basis when he appointed Smith to the office. He said the question of whether or not there’s a law supporting his appointment must be addressed before any prosecution can continue and that such legal support is constitutionally required for the appointment to be legitimate.

Thomas cited the principle of the separation of powers, suggesting that the executive branch can’t simply create offices on demand; they must be supported by an act of the legislature. He added that Smith is effectively a private citizen, and he has no authority without legal support.

In a separate amicus brief filed by former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, Meese argued that there was no legal basis for Smith’s appointment whatsoever. Meese suggested Jack Smith has no more authority than Taylor Smith or Jeff Bezos to prosecute former President Trump.