Hunter Biden uses Trump classified docs ruling in dismissal of cases request
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, arrives to the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building on June 06, 2024 in Wilmington, Delaware. Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Hunter Biden's legal team has requested the dismissal of cases against him in Delaware and California citing the "unconstitutional" appointment of special counsel David Weiss.
Why it matters: Judge Aileen Cannon, the heavily scrutinized judge handling former President Trump's federal classified documents case in Florida, dismissed Trump's indictment Monday using the same justification as Biden's attorneys: the unconstitutional appointment of the investigation's special counsel.
Zoom out: Both Biden's attorneys and Cannon cited Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's ruling that granted presidents immunity for official acts.
- "Guided by Justice Thomas' opinion, Judge Cannon dismissed an indictment against President Trump earlier this week because the Special Counsel was unconstitutionally appointed," Biden's legal team wrote in court filings.
- "Based on these new legal developments, Mr. Biden moves to dismiss the indictment brought against him because the Special Counsel who initiated this prosecution was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause as well," the motion read.
Catch up quick: The president's son was found guilty on all three charges he faced in his federal gun trial last month.
- He also faces federal tax charges — to which he has pleaded not guilty — in a separate case in California that is scheduled to go to trial in September.
- Biden was set to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax charges as part of a plea deal which ultimately crumbled after being rejected by a federal judge.
Driving the news: Thomas, in a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's 6-3 immunity ruling, questioned the legality of Smith's appointment and expressed uncertainty that "any office for the Special Counsel has been "established by Law," as the Constitution requires."
- "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," Thomas wrote.
- "If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution," Thomas continued.
State of play: President Biden said in a Monday interview with NBC News that the Supreme Court seems to be "out of touch with what the founders intended," telling Lester Holt he disagreed with what Thomas wrote.
Yes, but: Now Thomas' concurring opinion could provide a legal lifeline to the president's son — and his presidential rival.
The bottom line: Smith appealed Cannon's Trump decision Wednesday, requesting the 11th Circuit reopen the dismissed case.
- Thomas' opinion on which Cannon's dismissal was based was a concurring opinion and not part of the Court's controlling majority opinion.
Editor's note: This story has been updated throughout with additional context.
