Judge Aileen Cannon bars release of Volume II of Jack Smith’s report

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday issued a permanent order barring the Justice Department from releasing Volume II of former special counsel Jack Smith’s final report on the Mar‑a‑Lago classified‑documents probe, a prohibition that the court said would protect President Donald Trump and two of his former co‑defendants and that would have prevented a public release planned for Tuesday. The order applies to Attorney General Pam Bondi and her successors and forbids sharing the volume or drafts outside the Department of Justice.

Volume II concerns Smith’s investigation into President Trump’s alleged mishandling and retention of classified government records after his first term, and alleged obstruction of the government’s efforts to recover the material. The underlying probe followed the discovery of dozens of classified files at Mar‑a‑Lago after the president left the White House in 2021.

Cannon grounded her injunction in the court’s prior July 2024 ruling that Smith had been unlawfully appointed and that the prosecution should be dismissed. The judge said the circumstances here were atypical for special counsel practice and that releasing a report in this posture would be unfair to defendants. “Moreover, while it is true that former special counsels have released final reports at the conclusion of their work, it appears they have done so either after electing not to bring charges at all or after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial,” 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, at least not in a situation like this one, where the defendants contested the charges from the outset and still proclaim their innocence.”

Cannon also sharply criticized Smith’s decision to prepare and transmit the report after the dismissal order. “Rather than seek a stay of the Order, or clarification, Special Counsel Smith and his team chose to circumvent it, for months, by taking the discovery generated in this case and compiling it in a final report for transmission to then‑Attorney General Garland, to Congress, and then beyond,” the judge wrote. “The Court need not countenance this brazen stratagem or effectively perpetuate the Special Counsel's breach of this Court's own order.”

The injunction was sought by President Trump and two former co‑defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira. The order bars the Department of Justice, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and her successors, from releasing, distributing, conveying, or sharing with anyone outside the department any information or conclusions in Volume II or in drafts thereof, the court said.

Reactions split along familiar lines. Kendra Wharton, described as a lawyer for Mr. Trump, praised the ruling, saying Cannon’s “courage and judicial resolve on these important due process issues should be recognized and taught in law school classrooms across America.” Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, criticized the decision and warned of broader transparency consequences, saying “there is no legitimate basis for its continued suppression” and that the ruling “is impossible to square with the First Amendment and the common law.”

The order leaves in place a sealed record of Smith’s work even as public access to his findings is blocked. The classified‑records investigation once drew sharp attention because of national security stakes and the allegation that sensitive defense material ended up at a private club. With the court’s permanent injunction now entered, advocates for disclosure are likely to press appeals or other legal challenges, and the Justice Department has not released a public response to the order.