Jack Smith allegations may present new obstacle for prosecuting Donald Trump

Donald Trump's attorneys suggested at his presidential immunity hearing this week they might take up a long-shot pot-shot at special counsel Jack Smith's eligibility to prosecute their client, a new report shows.

D.C. Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs this week asked Trump's attorney to state his position on a challenge — filed with the Supreme Court last month by Reagan-era Attorney General Ed Meese — contending Smith's appointment was not constitutional, the Washington Times reports.

“I think it raises very powerful questions," Dean John Sauer replied. "But we have not raised it at this time."

While legal experts told the Washington Times there are big problems with the challenge, it could throw a wrench in the works.

ALSO READ: How Trump's campaign visits cost local police departments

The argument, that Smith couldn't be appointed to his special counsel role because he wasn't working for the Justice department when appointed, doesn't pass the smell test for Elliot Mincberg, senior fellow at the liberal People for the American Way.

Mincberg notes Robert Mueller was not with the Justice department when he was appointed special counsel in his Russia probe, and that the indictment has the backing of Merrick Garland, the leader of said department.

"It was approved by the attorney general," Mincberg told the Washington Times. "It’s one of the big weaknesses of the Meese argument."

But Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, believes the Meese's amicus brief had a case to make if the Supreme Court is willing to consider it.

“If you take politics and publicity out of it," Levey told the news outlet, "I think it is a winning argument."