Clarence Thomas sparks debate as he challenges Jack Smith's appointment in SCOTUS immunity ruling

WASHINGTON, DC: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas challenged the legality of special counsel Jack Smith's appointment to investigate former President Donald Trump.

The conservative jurist questioned the appointment's legitimacy in a concurring opinion after the Supreme Court on Monday, July 1, in a 6-3 majority, ruled in favor of Trump's absolute immunity that protected him from prosecutions over the official acts committed while in the White House, as per the New York Post.

According to Thomas, Smith's appointment "highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure."

"[T]here are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law," the justice wrote in the concurrent opinion, claiming that "[t]hose questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed."

Clarence Thomas suggests Jack Smith's appointment was illegal

Jack Smith, previously a leading prosecutor for the International Criminal Court in The Hague, was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland under the Biden administration in November 2022.

Since his appointment as special counsel, he has brought two federal indictments against Trump: one for mishandling classified documents after his presidency, and another for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election results.

Thomas expressed skepticism about whether "any office for the Special Counsel has been 'established by Law,' as required by the Constitution."

He continued, "By requiring that Congress create federal offices 'by Law,' the Constitution imposes an important check against the President – he cannot create offices at his pleasure." He asserted, "A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President."

In the Florida classified documents case, the former president filed a motion to dismiss it, arguing Smith's appointment was illegal. However, he did not seek a similar move in the election interference case in Washington, DC.

US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who oversees the case, has yet to rule on the real estate mogul's motion.

Furthermore, Thomas argued that the courts should determine whether the special counsel "is a principal or inferior officer" to assess the constitutionality of his appointment.

If Smith was determined to be a principal officer, his appointment would be invalid because neither the president nominated him nor the Senate confirmed his appointment.

Clarence Thomas' challenge to legality of Jack Smith's appointment sparks online debate

While some netizens criticized Thomas for questioning the legality of Smith's appointment, others sided with the Supreme Court justice's viewpoint.

"So crazy that is just how it will be, bought Supreme Court justices. When do we overthrow our government? Why can’t we organize like that?" Asked a user. 

Whereas another remarked, "Thomas is a man among men. He is now doing the job that Republicans and Lawmakers wouldn’t."

A user asked, "Of course corrupt Thomas did. How much did he get paid for this?" While another response read, "As it should be called out! Its Unconstitutional and Thomas is correct." [sic]

"#JackSmith is an authorized agent of the US government! #ClarenceThomas is just an UncleTom kissing up to a wannabe Dictator #Trump," someone else chimed in.

"It's taken this damn long for someone to speak up? Good job CT! The tide is turning and people will be held accountable. Lfg!" An individual wrote. [sic]

"Haha. Justice Thomas trying to get the documents case thrown out. He needs to go. This case had nothing to do with questions about the appointment of a special counsel. It was solely about presidential immunity. WTF He is a bad actor on the court," another user added. [sic]

On the other hand, a remark read, "Clarence Thomas is an absolute juggernaut of Constitutional Law. Thank God for America that this man was born."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.