Special Counsel Jack Smith is accustomed to trying war crime and corruption cases, but come Friday and Monday he will find himself the subject of a hurricane of hearings that could upend his prosecutions of President Trump.

Judge Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over Mr. Smith’s Mar-a-Lago case, will convene a session on Friday devoted to the question of whether the special counsel has been constitutionally appointed. The judge, who has been less sympathetic to Mr. Smith’s case than her counterpart overseeing the January 6 case at Washington, will hear not only from the government and Trump’s team, but also from amicus curiae, non-parties to the case who have been granted the rare opportunity to argue orally.

On Monday, Judge Cannon will devote half a day of arguments to Trump’s contention that Mr. Smith’s funding is unconstitutional under the Appropriations Clause. That Trump has secured hearings on the special counsel’s appointment and the appropriations that allow for his work suggests that the 45th president’s appeals to constitutional bedrock are gaining ground.  

Judge Cannon scheduled these hearings in the same order within which she indefinitely delayed the trial of Trump and two of his employees, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. Trump is accused of more than two-dozen violations of the Espionage Act, and all three are alleged to have committed acts of criminal obstruction at the Palm Beach manse. 

By scheduling the hearing on disqualification even as she pushed off the trial, Judge Cannon could be signaling that Mr. Smith’s appointment is one of the issues she sees as necessary to resolve before a jury can be selected. The Georgia court of appeals has made a similar determination with respect to the disqualification petition against District Attorney Fani Willis. Her racketeering case against Trump and 18 others is mostly frozen pending appeal. 

Those who characterize Mr. Smith’s appointment as de rigeur and those who oppose it as constitutionally forbidden will both summon support from the Appointments Clause. That text ordains that the president “​​shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors … and all other Officers of the United States.” 

The Constitution adds, though, that the “Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Mr. Smith was neither nominated by President Biden nor confirmed by the Senate. He claims, though, to be an “inferior officer,” and therefore appointable by Attorney General Garland. The special counsel contends that the attorney general oversees his work and can fire him for “good cause.”

If Mr. Smith is to keep his job, he will have to defeat two distinct arguments that share the conclusion that he is without the constitutional authority to try this case. One will be argued in court by a law professor, Joshua Blackman, on behalf of another scholar, Seth Barrett Tillman, and an allied organization, the Landmark Legal Foundation. They contend that Mr. Smith is a mere “employee” and therefore not an “officer” as contemplated by the Appointments Clause. 

The Supreme Court in 1868 held that an officer’s work is “continuing and permanent, not occasional or temporary.” Messrs. Blackman and Barrett Tillman note that Mr. Smith is tasked with prosecuting Trump, after which his authority will lapse. The scholars write that after a special counsel finishes his work, “there is no continuing institutional framework that would remain.”

Messrs. Blackman and Barrett Tillman offer Judge Cannon a remedy: A duly appointed United States attorney in the Southern District of Florida could supervise his work. That tonic, though, would not be enough to satisfy a second group of amici that comprises Attorneys General Meese and Mukasey and the law professors Gary Lawson and Steven Calabresi. They will be represented in court by an attorney, Gene Schaerr. 

Generals Meese and Mukasey et al. contend that the attorney general is not empowered by Congress to appoint inferior officers. Mr. Calabresi tells the Sun that Mr. Garland “cannot elevate a private citizen to be special counsel.” The group also contends that if Mr. Smith is any kind of officer, he is a principal one whose investiture demanded senatorial confirmation. 

This group points to Mr. Smith’s ability to charge across jurisdictions — the special counsel is also the author of the January 6 prosecution. Department of Justice prosecutors are usually hemmed in by their jurisdictional assignments.

Mr. Calabresi shares his view that Mr. Smith is “more powerful than the 94 United States attorneys, all of whom were confirmed by the Senate.” He adds that Senate confirmation has been in place from 1789 to the present day. 

The Sun spoke to Mr. Blackman ahead of his turn in court on Friday, where he will be allotted 30 minutes to make his case after Trump and Mr. Smith have made their arguments. He calls his argument and the one laid out to the Sun by Mr. Calabresi “two paths to the same conclusion that run parallel and then intersect at the end” — the conviction that Mr. Smith cannot prosecute this case.