Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal judge on Monday permanently barred the Justice Department from releasing the portion of former special counsel Jack Smith’s final report that details his investigation into President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents and alleged obstruction of the federal probe.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted requests from Trump and his former co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, issuing an order that permanently prohibits the release or sharing of the second volume of Smith’s report.
The ruling bars Attorney General Pam Bondi — or any future attorney general — from making that portion of the report public.
Judge cites presumption of innocence and unlawful appointment
Cannon, who presided over the classified documents prosecution against Trump, ruled in July 2024 that Smith had been unlawfully appointed as special counsel and dismissed all charges. Smith appealed that decision, but the case ended after Trump won a second term in the White House.
In Monday’s order, Cannon said releasing the report would violate fundamental due process protections.
“Special Counsel Smith, acting without lawful authority, obtained an indictment in this action and initiated proceedings that resulted in a final order of dismissal of all charges,” Cannon wrote. “As a result, the former defendants in this case … still enjoy the presumption of innocence held sacrosanct in our constitutional order.”
She added that the court had no legal basis to authorize disclosure of the report absent a statutory directive.
Discovery materials and grand jury secrecy
Cannon also emphasized that the second volume contains extensive discovery materials still covered by a protective order issued earlier in the case, including information derived from grand jury proceedings.
Allowing release of the report, she wrote, would inevitably lead to public disclosure of material that remains legally protected.
“While it is true that former special counsels have released final reports at the conclusion of their work,” Cannon wrote, “the Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.”
Without the court’s intervention, the report had been scheduled for public release Tuesday.
Justice Department backed Trump’s request
The Justice Department supported Trump’s request to block release of the report, arguing that disclosure would violate Cannon’s earlier constitutional rulings and core separation-of-powers principles.
Justice Department lawyers said Smith’s investigation was “unlawful from its inception” and should not be afforded official standing.
“Smith not only weaponized the Department of Justice against a leading presidential candidate,” government attorneys wrote, “but he did so without legal authority.”
Bondi designated the report an internal deliberative document that is privileged and confidential, the department said.
Trump lawyers praise ruling
Trump attorney Kendra Wharton praised Cannon’s decision, calling it a necessary safeguard against public dissemination of unproven allegations.
“The broad disclosure of protected grand jury testimony and discovery materials related to a dismissed criminal case has no place in the American judicial system,” Wharton said, adding that Cannon’s ruling should be studied in law schools.
A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Two investigations, two outcomes
Smith brought two criminal cases against Trump in 2023 — one tied to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and another involving classified documents retained after Trump left office. Trump pleaded not guilty in both cases and denied wrongdoing.
Both prosecutions ended after Trump’s reelection. Smith resigned before Trump’s second inauguration but submitted a two-volume report to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland before departing.
The first volume, detailing Smith’s election interference investigation, was released earlier this year after courts rejected efforts by Nauta and de Oliveira to block it. The second volume — covering the documents case — has remained sealed.
Contrast with past special counsel reports
Federal regulations require special counsels to submit reports explaining prosecutorial decisions at the conclusion of their work. Several recent reports have been made public, including findings by Robert Hur on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified materials and a report by John Durham on the origins of the Russia investigation.
Cannon’s ruling draws a sharp distinction between those cases and Smith’s work, noting that Trump’s documents case ended without a conviction or adjudication of guilt.
