Former President Donald Trump, understandably, would like nothing better than to see Special Counsel Jack Smith and his criminal indictments deemed illegitimate by a court, and there is a real chance of that occurring in the coming weeks.

On June 21, District Judge Aileen Cannon will hold a hearing involving Trump's defense team, the special counsel's office, and three outside groups of legal scholars to consider a motion to dismiss the classified documents indictment based on the alleged unlawful nature of Smith's initial appointment to the special counsel role, The Washington Post reported.

If Cannon is convinced during that hearing that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel and lacks proper prosecutorial authority, the logical remedy would be for the judge to disqualify him and everything he has done in the case since his invalid appointment, including the criminal indictment itself.

Trump and others argue Smith's appointment as special counsel was unlawful

In February, former President Trump's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on Special Counsel Smith's unlawful appointment and funding, and was joined shortly after that by a couple of amici, or "friends of the court," outside groups who supported the assertion that Smith's initial appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland was invalid and unauthorized by the Constitution or Congress.

One of the amici groups includes former Republican Attorneys General Ed Meese and Michael Mukasey, along with constitutional scholars Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, who unsuccessfully raised a similar argument against former Special Counsel Robert Mueller during Trump's tenure in office.

They essentially assert that the special counsel's office was never properly "established by Law" by either the Constitution's Appointments Clause or by congressional statute, but rather by internal DOJ regulations, and that the attorney general lacks the authority to appoint to the role a "private citizen" who was not first appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate.

As such, the only way a special counsel can be considered legitimate, in their view, is if they were first appointed and confirmed as a U.S. attorney or -- such as in Smith's unconfirmed case -- if they are assigned only to assist a superior and Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney in the lead prosecutorial role.

Cannon opens up hearing on validity of Smith's appointment

The Post noted that the illegitimate special counsel argument has been tried but failed before in other courts and lambasted Judge Cannon for tossing "another curveball" in the classified documents case by seriously "entertaining" what it deemed a "longshot" attempt by the former president to wriggle his way out of accountability for his alleged crimes.

The June 21 hearing in and of itself was seen as worthy of criticism as yet another supposed sign of the judge displaying favoritism toward the president who appointed her but the fact that she also opened up that hearing to three amici groups -- two in support of Trump's motion and one in opposition -- was a "rare occurrence" that served to amp up the sharp critiques of Cannon.

At the very least, the open hearing represents another apparent success for Trump's strategy of incessant delay tactics to forestall a trial, while at worst -- in the eyes of the biased media -- it could conceivably result in Smith being ruled illegitimate and the indictment being tossed, a move that would undoubtedly be appealed, likely even to the Supreme Court, and cause even further delays to the case that may never actually come to trial.

Would the Supreme Court uphold Cannon ruling Smith's appointment was invalid?

If Judge Cannon were to determine that Special Counsel Smith was illegitimate and his actions in that role invalid, and if that ruling ultimately ended up at the Supreme Court, The Post's analysis seemed to indicate that there is at least a chance that Cannon's decision could be upheld by the conservative-leaning majority.

It was noted that during the Supreme Court's oral arguments in April on former President Trump's immunity claim, Justice Clarence Thomas directly asked Trump's attorneys if they had challenged Smith's appointment, which The Post suggested may have been the jurist "volunteering a potential argument for the Trump team" to use at a future date.

The outlet also observed that Justice Brett Kavanaugh, back when he was still an appellate judge, had spoken critically of prior precedent upholding the validity of independent and special counsels, indicating that he might rule against them as inappropriate and unauthorized if given an opportunity.