In “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” the Mad Hatter asks Alice, “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” It turned out that the Mad Hatter had no better idea than Alice.

In her 93-page order, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon seemed to face the same dilemma when she asked special counsel Jack Smith why a private citizen is like a confirmed U.S. attorney. On Monday, she dismissed the criminal case against former President Donald Trump over his handling of classified documents, ruling that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful.

Cannon has struggled with the assertion of Attorney General Merrick Garland that he may pick private citizens to serve as special counsels and exercise greater authority than a federal prosecutor without any appointment under the Constitution or clear statutory authority.

The Biden administration has argued that even asking about its authority is as absurd and frivolous as asking about ravens and writing desks. It notes that most courts have dismissed these claims with little argument or consideration.

Yet, Cannon kept coming back to the question: Why is a private citizen like a confirmed U.S. attorney?

Justice Clarence Thomas raised same issue in Trump immunity case

It is the same question asked by Justice Clarence Thomas in his recent concurrence in the Trump immunity case.

“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,” Thomas wrote. “The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”

Someone just did. Cannon found the question neither frivolous nor easy.

After all, we have a demanding constitutional process for the presidential appointment of a U.S. attorney and the Senate confirmation of that nominee.

Yet, the Justice Department has argued that Garland can either follow that constitutional process or just grab any private citizen (like former top Justice Department official Jack Smith) to exercise more power than a federal prosecutor. Moreover, he can make such unilateral appointments by the gross if he wants.

Cannon also noted that the special counsel is pulling funds from the Treasury ($12 million by the latest count) without any clear appropriation from Congress.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Yet, Smith is pulling money under a permanent indefinite appropriation reserved for an “independent counsel.”

He is not an independent counsel, however, because the Independent Counsel Act expired in 1999. This means Smith must show some “other law” granting him this authority. The court said that he failed to do so.

‘Very little oversight or supervision’

Cannon noted that “there does appear to be a ‘tradition’ of appointing special-attorney-like figures in moments of political scandal throughout the country’s history. But very few, if any, of these figures actually resemble the position of Special Counsel Smith. Mr. Smith is a private citizen exercising the full power of a United States Attorney, and with very little oversight or supervision.”

With that, the judge dismissed the case and, with it, 40 charges stemming from Trump’s handling of documents marked classified after leaving office and allegedly obstructing the Justice Department’s investigation.

From the outset, I have maintained that the Florida case was the greatest threat to Trump. Where the other cases had serious constitutional, statutory and evidentiary flaws, the Florida case was based on well-established laws and precedent.

It was not the law but the lawyer who proved to be the problem. Jack Smith was himself the argument that would bring down his case − at least for now.

The special counsel said Monday that he will appeal, but the decision makes any trial in Florida before the election virtually impossible. That in itself is a huge victory for Trump.

Smith still has a second case in Washington, D.C., with an ideal judge and jury pool. However, the Supreme Court recently ripped the wings off that case by first limiting the use of obstruction charges (which constitute half of the four counts against Trump) and then declared that Trump is either absolutely immune or presumptively immune on a wide array of acts and evidence impacting the indictment.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has proved very favorable to Smith in moving away obstacles to try Trump before the election. However, perhaps for that reason, the Supreme Court went out of its way to narrow her range of movement on these questions.

Thus, even if Chutkan refuses to reconsider the constitutional issues on Smith’s appointment, she will be hard pressed to hold a trial before the election and even harder pressed to make it stick on appeal.

In the end, the appointment question has good-faith arguments on both sides, which Judge Cannon acknowledged in her detailed opinion. She could be reversed on appeal, but this issue seems likely to go to the Supreme Court.

Immunity case could go up to Inauguration Day

Convicting Trump either before or after the election seems to be Smith’s overriding priority. The Washington Post reported this month that the special counsel is prepared to pursue the conviction of Trump until Jan. 20, when Trump would take the oath of office if elected in November.

The problem for Smith is now another question worthy of the Mad Hatter: What can crawl and fly with only hands but no legs or wings?

The answer is the one thing that Smith no longer has: time.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”