A federal judge dismissed the unclassified documents against former President Donald Trump, ruling that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

A federal judge on Monday dismissed the superseding indictment against former President Donald Trump, citing constitutional violations in the appointment of Special Counsel.

The order, handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach, involved charges against Trump for the willful retention of national defense information and additional conspiracy and concealment charges.

The court’s dismissal was predicated upon a motion filed by Trump’s legal team, which argued that Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Appointments Clause mandates that principal officers of the United States must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In this case, the court found that Smith, who was neither nominated by the President nor confirmed by the Senate, was unlawfully appointed.

The court noted that the statutes cited as legal authority for Smith’s appointment did not confer the Attorney General with the power to appoint a Special Counsel with the prosecutorial authority equivalent to that of a U.S. Attorney.

“The Superseding Indictment is dismissed because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,” Judge Aileen Cannon wrote in the legal order. “Smith’s use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the Appropriations Clause, but the Court need not address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.”

Cannon’s order also addressed an Appropriations Clause challenge, which prohibits the expenditure of funds without proper Congressional appropriation. While the court acknowledged this violation, it focused its ruling on the Appointments Clause, deeming it unnecessary to determine the remedy for the funding issue due to the primary dismissal on constitutional grounds.

“As to the Appropriations Clause issue, Special Counsel Smith argues that he lawfully draws from the Indefinite Appropriation for independent counsels, because he retains substantial independence from the Attorney General and was appointed pursuant to other law,” Cannon wrote. “Upon careful study of the foundational challenges raised in the Motion, the Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s Smith’s prosecution of this action breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme—the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers, and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law.”