The prosecution of former President Donald Trump in the “documents” case was dismissed by a federal judge in Florida on Monday. Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith had not been appointed in a constitutional or lawful manner, leading her to grant a defense motion. Smith, who was not confirmed by the U.S. Senate and was not a U.S. Attorney when appointed, was deemed unable to lawfully bring the indictment against Trump in federal court.

“In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny,” Cannon wrote, according to a CNN report.

In her opinion, Judge Cannon wrote:

“In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing “regulatory” special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny. Perhaps this can be traced back to reliance on stray dictum in Nixon that perpetuated in subsequent cases. Perhaps it can be justified practically by the urgency of national crises. Or perhaps it can be explained by the relative infrequency of these types of investigations, by congressional inattention, or by the important roles that special-counsel-like figures have played in our country’s history. Regardless of the explanation, the present Motion requires careful analysis of the statutory landscape to ensure compliance with the Constitution, and the Court has endeavored to do so with care. The Court thus returns to where it started. The Appointments Clause is “among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.” Edmond, 520 U.S. at 659. So too is the Appropriations Clause, which carefully separates Congressional control of the “purse” from Executive control of the “sword.” The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton). The consequences of relaxing either of those critical provisions are serious, both in this case and beyond. As Justice Frankfurter explained in his opinion in Youngstown, “[t]he accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 594 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). “[I]llegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing . . . by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886).”

The remarkable turn of events occurred during the initial day of the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is sure to energize an already impassioned assembly following Trump’s assassination attempt on Saturday. Numerous conservatives are of the opinion that the numerous legal actions taken against Trump, including two federal and two state prosecutions, as well as civil lawsuits, were intended to cultivate an atmosphere of animosity that may have incited the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania.

Legal experts have suggested that the “documents” case was likely the most compelling one against Trump, as he did not have the protection of office at the time of the alleged misconduct.

With the dismissal of that case, the legal battle against Trump, known as “lawfare,” appears to be on uncertain ground. Although Trump was found guilty in Manhattan for falsifying business records, there are numerous critics who view the prosecution as unjust and the judge as prejudiced, indicating that an appeal is probable to be successful.