The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Jack Smith Lacks Standing to File in the Supreme Court Because He is Only a Private Citizen
The Justices must sua sponte address Jack Smith's lack of standing.
Private citizen Jack Smith lacks standing to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgement in United States v. Trump for the same reason I do. Jack Smith is in the eyes of the Supreme Court a private citizen not an officer of the United States. Standing issues need not be raised by the parties to a case nor can they be waived. The Supreme Court justices must address them sua sponte.
The Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon overlooked Leo Jaworski's lack of standing because, if one consults the briefs in that case, one will find that no party ever raised the issue. The Court cursorily assumed Jaworski was legally appointed without ever examining the issue raised by me, former Attorney General Ed Meese, and Professor Gary Lawson. We discuss this issue at length in Steven G. Calabresi & Gary Lawson, Why Robert Mueller's Appointment as Special Counsel Was Unlawful, 95 Notre Dame Law Review 87, at pp. 118-125 (2019). The D.C. Circuit and District Courts have declined to readdress this issue because of erroneous precedent in the D.C. Circuit, which does not bind the Supreme Court, and in which the standing issue was never raised. See id., at 125-127.
A more recent D.C. Circuit and District Court affirmed the legality of Robert Muller's appointment without a sustained response to our argument that none of the statutes cited by the Justice Department in support of the legality of Robert Mueller's appointment. Jack Smith's case is a new case.
Standing issues never go away but may be raised at any point in any litigation. The fact of the matter is that everything Jack Smith has done as Special Counsel, since his appointment on November 18, 2022 has been unconstitutional and is null and void. Anyone now in jail, or subject to a plea bargain, with Jack Smith can ask to be released because Jack Smith is, in truth, a private citizen. The judge in the Florida District Court classified documents case is under the jurisdiction of the 11th Circuit and is not bound by D.C. Circuit precedent. Any litigant in a case before her can argue that Jack Smith is not a lawfully appointed officer of the United States.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This post ... will finally make fetch happen!
But I'm not going to hold my breath.
My Spidey sense tells me the Reverend Sandusky will submit a comment with the words "Klinger", "Kulture", and "Kasualty" in it, and probably a mention of "Stomping" of course that's like predicting Parkinsonian Joe will engage in creepy badinage with prepubescent girls (I'll give Reverend Jerry this much, he only molested the pubescent males)
Frank
How long until you password protect this and repost it a third time? Sorry bro, but you make the Reverend Arthur guy seem almost hinged by comparison.
I observe that this Hail Mary is too much of a long shot for even Trump's notably creative legal team to attempt.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
quix·ot·ic
/kwikˈsädik/
adjective
exceedingly idealistic; unrealistic and impractical.
"a vast and perhaps quixotic project"
Can someone look into fixing a problem with this web site? I can't access the whole article. Specifically the part where it goes oh please oh please oh please oh please.
A direct report to the head of the DOJ is a private individual.
So, not really a 'special counsel' just another DOJ employee acting as an agent of the Attorney General. Perchance Jack should have put Mueller's name on everything?
Feels like calabresi wrote this stuff already.
Maybe he thought it would have more impact the second time.
"must sua sponte"
There's some type of inconsistency there.
Steven, these posts call to mind the "elephants on parade" scene from Dumbo.
Would have been a good idea to to post this instead of his first attempt. It has at least the advantage of relative brevity.
Otherwise, there's no reason for it. It simply repeats, from his first interminable effort and with an equal amount of purpose and rationality, the I am not going to be ignored! sentiment Glenn Close expressed in Fatal Attraction.
No one asks Meese about the missing Drug Prohibition Amendment.
Scalia would agree, but unfortunately he is dead.
And once he's found to be a private citizen, claw back (from him personally) all of the taxpayers money he's spent fraudulently.
And impeach Mueller for allowing it all to happen. Then charge him criminally, as there would appear to be no sort of Executive immunity protecting him.
And then overthrow God from his lofty throne for ordering the world with such obstacles and irritants in Trump's path and for daring to think His majesty outshines Trump's.
You really think this is about Trump?
Your rules, best learn to live with them.
Yes. It's not like Guiliani claimed that a certain US president was under control of the Russians because they had a pee tape.
In 1999 the Special Council section of The Ethics in Government act expired, Now, neither Congress nor the courts have any official role in the appointment of a special counsel. Am I wrong about that? If not, that would seem to nullify this argument...
Leeke v. Timmerman was wrongly decided, change my mind. We need federal private prosecution.
This piece was authored by a law professor so I am hoping they will read and respond.
The Appointments Clause reserves the right of appointments to the authority of the President, with the consent of the Senate by a 2/3 vote. The clause also allows Congress to "delegate" this authority for lesser positions. When 28 USC 600 was passed by Congress and signed into law by a sitting President, the authority to appoint a Special Counsel was lawfully delegated to the Attorney General.
Given that the Appointments Clause allows for delegating the authority and given that Congress codified 28 USC 600 into law to allow such delegation, can you explain why 28 USC 600 would be an unconstitutional law?