Federal Judge Bars Release of Special Counsel’s Report on Trump Classified-Documents Case

MIAMI — A federal judge in Florida has permanently blocked the Justice Department from publishing the second volume of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report on the prosecution of Donald Trump over classified documents kept at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence. The ruling, issued Monday by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, also rejects requests from advocacy groups for a temporary stay while they appeal and turns aside a motion by Trump’s two co-defendants to destroy the material outright.

Cannon’s order relies on her July 2024 decision that Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. That earlier finding led her to dismiss an indictment returned in June 2023 accusing Trump of unlawfully retaining national-security records and obstructing government efforts to recover them. Because the criminal case was tossed, Cannon wrote, no adjudication of guilt occurred and the defendants “still enjoy the presumption of innocence.” She concluded that releasing the still-confidential report would inflict “irreparable damage” by exposing privileged communications, grand-jury materials and other non-public information.

Smith prepared the disputed document—identified in court filings as Volume II—while the Justice Department was appealing Cannon’s dismissal. The department later abandoned that appeal after Trump won the 2024 presidential election. In sharply critical language, Cannon described the special counsel’s decision to complete a report after her constitutional ruling as a “brazen stratagem” that lacked any lawful foundation once his status was called into question.

Trump’s co-defendants, longtime aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira, initially asked the court to seal the report. They argued that publication could prejudice prospective jurors in any future proceedings and unlawfully reveal information gathered during an investigation that itself had been declared invalid. Cannon agreed in part, declining to order destruction of the material but forbidding its release “in perpetuity.”

Separately, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the watchdog group American Oversight had intervened, contending the public has a constitutional and common-law right to see the findings of a taxpayer-funded probe into a former president’s handling of classified records. Both organizations sought a stay of Cannon’s earlier sealing order while they pursue appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On Monday, Cannon refused, stating that continued secrecy is necessary to protect due-process rights and ongoing privilege disputes.

The judge acknowledged in a footnote that her ruling could be overturned. Should the Eleventh Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court issue contrary instructions, she wrote, “this Court will follow whatever mandates come from a higher court.” District judges routinely comply with appellate mandates, but it is unusual for a ruling to highlight that obligation explicitly.

Smith, who previously obtained convictions of multiple public officials during his tenure as head of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, has declined to discuss the contents of the report, citing Cannon’s orders. His counsel, Lanny Breuer, did not respond to a request for comment.

Imagem: imagem internet 48

Trump’s legal team welcomed the decision. Attorney Kendra Wharton said in a statement that Smith’s inquiry was “unconstitutionally appointed and improperly funded,” and any resulting work product “should never see the light of day.” Nauta and de Oliveira’s lawyers offered no immediate comment.

Cannon’s ruling is the latest development in a high-profile legal battle that began when the National Archives alerted the Justice Department in early 2022 that dozens of classified documents remained at Mar-a-Lago. After an FBI search later that year recovered additional materials, Smith was appointed to determine whether charges were warranted. The grand jury returned a 38-count indictment in June 2023 accusing Trump of willful retention of national-defense information and conspiracy to obstruct justice, among other offenses.

Legal scholars are divided over Cannon’s constitutional analysis. Critics say the Appointments Clause traditionally permits the attorney general to name a special counsel without Senate confirmation, pointing to precedents such as Robert Mueller’s 2017 probe. Supporters counter that the clause requires principal officers—those who wield significant independent authority—to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Congressional Research Service offers a detailed overview of the clause and related case law here.

The Justice Department has not indicated whether it will appeal Monday’s order. Any challenge would return the matter to the Eleventh Circuit, which already handled procedural issues earlier in the litigation. Should the appellate court reverse Cannon, the report could eventually become public unless the Supreme Court intervenes.

Crédito da imagem: US Courts