The case was once seen as the most significant legal threat against Trump, but U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted the defense motion to dismiss it on Monday.

Trump’s attorneys had argued that special counsel Jack Smith was illicitly appointed, based on the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and that his office was therefore improperly funded by the Justice Department.

Judge Canon agreed, writing in her ruling that it’s essentially up to the legislative branch to appoint officers such as special prosecutors.

She wrote, “…is there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no.”

Canon points to the original intent of America’s founders who wrote the Constitution.

“The Framers gave Congress a pivotal role in the appointment of principal and inferior officers. That role cannot be usurped by the Executive Branch or diffused elsewhere – whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not.”

Her reasoning points to a need for the legislative branch of the U.S. government to provide checks and balances against the potential weaponization of the judicial branch of government. Critics have expressed concern about “lawfare” in recent years – a reference to those who would use prosecutions as a political weapon.

“The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers,” Judge Canon wrote. “The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers.”

Jack Smith is reportedly able to appeal the ruling but has yet to comment on the judge’s decision.

DEVELOPING…