Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Jack Smith could not constitutionally wield the power of a special counsel.
Posted by The Charlie Kirk Show, Checked
- Sources
- 5 support2 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 90%
The Charlie Kirk ShowJul 30, 2026
Multiple tier1 sources report that Judge Aileen Cannon ruled on July 15, 2024 that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment violated the Appointments Clause and that he lacked authority to bring the case, which matches the claim that he could not constitutionally wield special counsel power.
Our two reads of who says this, and how, disagree, so it counts as the post's own claim.
What was said
… I'm not sure that even if that independent counsel statute existed, the current Supreme Court would say that it's constitutional, so mere regulations that are issued by an attorney general in this instance, that was Janet Reno you know, would be upheld. We know that Judge Cannon thought that they were constitutionally suspect, and she, you know, said that that Jack Smith couldn't constitutionally wield that power. So but but look, putting aside the issue of using a special counsel or not, there's no reason why you have to use a special counsel. Robert Hirsch's pronouncements are not set in stone. They can be reconsidered by the current acting AG. …
The Charlie Kirk Show · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. Reuters reports Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and did not have the authority to bring the case.[1]
Supports. Cannon's 93-page ruling held that Smith's appointment violated the Appointments Clause because he was not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and that no statute authorized the attorney general to appoint an officer with his prosecutorial power.[2][4][5]
Supports. A 2026 NBC News report confirms Cannon's 2024 ruling that Smith's appointment as special prosecutor was unlawful, and that she relied on it in a later order.[6]
Context. The ruling was appealed to the 11th Circuit, and the Justice Department argued the attorney general had authority to appoint a special counsel; this is a dispute over the ruling, not a finding that it was not made.[1][3][7]
Sources
7 sources: 3 fact-checkers, 1 tier 1, 2 tier 2, 1 not rated
- 1US Justice Department to appeal ruling dismissing Trump ...reuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports, context
- 2Trump classified documents case dismissed: What’s next?politifact.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 3apnews.com › article › trump-classified-documentsJudge's order dismissing Trump classified docs case won't be ...apnews.com · fact-checker · cited for: context
- 4Donald Trump classified documents case dismissed over Jack Smith ...thehill.com · tier 1 · cited for: supports
- 5Judge dismisses Trump documents case over special counsel appointmentnpr.org · tier 2 · cited for: supports
- 6Trump appointee Aileen Cannon blocks release of Jack Smith's ...nbcnews.com · tier 2 · cited for: supports
- 7Special counsel Jack Smith appeals ruling tossing Trump's ... - NHPRnhpr.org · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- The release of the special counsel's report regarding Judge Cannon is still pending before the appeals court.True
- Judge Tawani found the executive order unconstitutional because it violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution regarding state authority to regulate elections.True
- Former Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 1, 2026.Can’t tell
- Judge Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the Department of Justice's 'weaponization slush fund' for J6 defendants.True
- Special Counsel Robert Hur stated that Joe Biden willfully retained classified documents.True