Hunter Biden's legal strategists are invoking an opinion from conservative Justice Clarence Thomas to argue for the dismissal of federal cases against him in Delaware and California.
The first son's legal team asserts that the special counsel in his case was appointed unconstitutionally, echoing a recent court decision concerning Donald Trump in which Thomas concurred, as Newsweek reports.
On Thursday, Biden's lawyers filed motions pointing to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's decision dismissing the indictment in Donald Trump’s classified documents case. Biden's defense claims that this decision was underpinned by Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
The July 1 decision by the Supreme Court clarified that former presidents have extensive protections from criminal prosecution. Citing this opinion, Biden's attorney, Abbe Lowell, argued that Judge Cannon dismissed charges against Trump because the special counsel’s appointment was unconstitutional, relying heavily on Thomas' legal reasoning.
Hunter Biden is seeking to overturn his Delaware conviction for possession of a gun while using narcotics, as well as to dismiss his pending federal tax crime charges in Los Angeles. His legal filings assert that the special counsel's appointment in his case violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
Last month, Biden was found guilty by a Delaware jury on three felony counts and is currently appealing the verdict. The grounds for his appeal focus on similarities between the special counsel’s appointments in his case and Trump’s, arguing that the constitutional issues are equally applicable.
Judge Cannon's decision earlier this week adopted Thomas' constitutional questions concerning the special counsel’s role. In his concurring opinion, Thomas argued that the special counsel’s position must be established by law, a requirement he found unmet in the case of special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, is leading both Trump’s classified documents case and the case involving Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. Thomas’ opinion highlighted potential constitutional violations related to Smith’s appointment by the attorney general without Senate confirmation.
Thomas' view, though not joined by other justices, underscored critical points about the constitutional basis for such high-powered legal appointments. "In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States," Thomas wrote.
Biden’s legal team asserts that if the appointment of the special counsel in Trump's case was flawed, the same legal principles should apply to the Biden probes. This raises profound questions about how appointments are conducted and validated.
"Guided by Justice Thomas' opinion, Judge Cannon dismissed an indictment against President Trump earlier this week because the Special Counsel was unconstitutionally appointed," stated Abbe Lowell, Biden's attorney. This sets a potentially influential precedent for Biden’s motions.
Biden's defense argues that “these new legal developments” necessitate dismissing the indictment brought against him. The notion of the special counsel’s appointment being in violation of the Appointments Clause is central to this argument.
The ramifications of Thomas’ opinion might reverberate widely, casting doubt on the legitimacy of appointments that sidestep established legal norms. Special counsel Smith defended the attorney general’s authority, asserting it aligns with statutory provisions, but this interpretation is now under increased scrutiny.
