photo #6870731

United States v. Trump(Docs Case)Special Counsel Jack Smith has responded to Trump's recent notice to the court (Immunity opinion from SCOTUS) and AGREED to a supplemental briefing on that issue.However, he pushes back on Thomas's "single-Justice concurrence—addressing an issue that Trump did not raise, that the parties did not brief, and that was not relevant to the question presented to, or decided by, the Court—neither binds this Court nor provides a sound basis to deviate from the uniform conclusion of all courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel. And as the concurrence recognized, the Supreme Court found that the statutes on which the Government principally relies here—28 U.S.C. §§ 515 and 533—“support[ed] the appointment of the Special Prosecutor in United States v. Nixon...The same is true here."https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.671.0.pdf