Judge blocks release of Trump documents case report by special counsel Jack Smith

A Florida federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump blocked the public release of a final report by former special counsel Jack Smith on his prosecution of Trump for retaining classified documents after leaving the White House at his Mar-a-Lago club and for blocking efforts to retrieve them.

Judge Aileen Cannon, in her order, cited her July 2024 ruling that Smith was not legally appointed as special counsel, which led to her dismissing the criminal case against Trump, as the key reason she said that Volume II of his final report on the case should not be made public.

Smith had obtained a grand jury indictment of Trump on charges related to those documents in June 2023, more than two years after Trump ended his first term in the White House.

Cannon also on Monday rejected a request by Trump’s two co-defendants in the case to have Smith’s report destroyed.

In her order permanently blocking the release of that report, Cannon blasted Smith for his “brazen stratagem” of compiling evidence and other material obtained during his investigation and “compiling it into a final report” to the attorney general after she ruled his appointment as special counsel violated the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Smith had taken those actions while appealing the judge’s dismissal of the criminal case against Trump. The Department of Justice dropped that appeal after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.

Cannon, in her ruling Monday, said releasing Smith’s report “would cause irreparable damage to former defendants from disclosure of non-public” material that was exchanged between Smith’s prosecution team and defense lawyers, which involved “still-contested grand jury and privilege concerns.”

“And it would contravene basic notions of fairness and justice in the process, where no adjudication of guilt has been reached following initiation of criminal charges,” Cannon wrote in her order in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

“There is the matter of manifest injustice to the former defendants that would result from disclosure of Volume II,” she wrote.

“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. As a result, the former defendants in this case, like any other defendant in this situation, still enjoy the presumption of innocence held sacrosanct in our constitutional order.”

Trump’s co-defendants in the case, his valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago worker Carlos de Oliveira, originally asked Cannon to block the release of Smith’s report. Trump in January asked Cannon to bar it from being made public.

In a curious footnote in her order on Monday, Cannon referenced the fact that her ruling blocking the release of Smith reports could be appealed and that her decision could be overturned by either the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

“As always, this Court will follow whatever mandates come from a higher court in resolving any future requests for judicial relief in this or any other case,” Cannon wrote.

Federal district court judges, as a rule, follow mandates from higher federal courts and do not typically take the time to affirm that practice in a written order.

Also on Monday, Cannon denied a motion by two groups, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and American Oversight, to stay her ruling on releasing Smith’s report pending the outcome of their appeals of her prior ruling blocking them from pursuing arguments that the report should be made public.

The Knight Institute, earlier in February, asked the 11th Circuit Appeals court to reverse a prior order by Cannon barring the release of Smith’s report.

“Judge Cannon’s decision to permanently block the release of this extraordinarily significant report is impossible to square with the First Amendment and the common law,” said Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight Institute, in a statement on Monday. “There is no legitimate basis for its continued suppression.”

Lanny Breuer, an attorney for Smith, did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC.

Smith, during recent testimony to Congress, indicated he was barred from commenting on the contents of his report, given Cannon’s prior rulings temporarily barring its disclosure.

Kendra Wharton, a lawyer for Trump, in a statement said, “Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed and his unlawful investigation was improperly funded with tens of millions of US taxpayers’ hard earned dollars.”

“Any and all fruit of Smith’s poisonous tree should be treated accordingly and should never see the light of day,” Wharton said.

Chioma Chukwu, Executive Director of American Oversight, in a statement said, “Judge Cannon’s ruling continues a troubling pattern of decisions that shield the president from public scrutiny and place secrecy above the public’s right to know.”

“By permanently blocking the release of Volume II of the Special Counsel’s report and denying our effort to seek a stay while our appeal moves forward, the court has ensured that the public is denied information of extraordinary national importance,” Chukwu said.

“This sweeping order once again gives the president exactly what he wanted — continued concealment of the factual record underlying the historic investigation into his misconduct. American taxpayers funded this investigation, and they have a right to know what their government uncovered, particularly on matters of national security,” Chukwu said. “We will continue using every tool available to force this information into the open and to defend the public’s right to the truth through the release of this report.”