Developing: Judge Aileen Cannon Permanently Blocks Release of Jack Smith's Report on Trump Classified Documents Case

In her order, Cannon cited her July 2024 ruling that Smith was not legally appointed as special counsel — a ruling that led to the dismissal of all criminal charges against Trump in the classified documents case. Cannon wrote that Smith had acted "without lawful authority" in obtaining a grand jury indictment against Trump and compiling evidence into a final report.

The judge argued that releasing the report would cause "irreparable damage" to the former defendants by disclosing non-public material exchanged between prosecutors and defense lawyers, including material subject to "still-contested grand jury and privilege concerns." She emphasized that Trump and his co-defendants, former valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago worker Carlos de Oliveira, "still enjoy the presumption of innocence held sacrosanct in our constitutional order" since no adjudication of guilt was reached.

Cannon also noted that while previous special counsels have released final reports, they have typically done so "either after electing not to bring charges at all or after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial." She said she could not find a precedent where a special counsel released a report after bringing charges that did not result in a finding of guilt.

Trump attorney Kendra Wharton praised the ruling, saying Cannon "properly ruled that the broad disclosure of protected grand jury testimony and discovery materials related to a dismissed criminal case, along with the publication of opinions and unproven accusations by an unconstitutional prosecutor, has no place in the American judicial system."

Wharton added that "Judge Cannon's courage and judicial resolve on these important due process issues should be recognized and taught in law school classrooms across America." The Trump team had asked Cannon in January to permanently bar current, former, and future Justice Department officials from ever releasing the report.

The Justice Department backed Trump's position, with department lawyers arguing that Smith's investigation was "unlawful from its inception" and that he had "weaponized the Department of Justice against a leading presidential candidate." Attorney General Bondi had previously marked the report as an internal deliberative communication that should not be released outside the department.

Civil liberties and government transparency organizations strongly criticized the ruling. Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, said Cannon's order "continues a troubling pattern of decisions that shield the president from public scrutiny and place secrecy above the public's right to know."

"American taxpayers funded this investigation, and they have a right to know what their government uncovered, particularly on matters of national security," Chukwu said. Her organization, along with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, had attempted to force the release of the report through the courts.

Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight Institute, called the decision "impossible to square with the First Amendment and the common law," adding that "there is no legitimate basis for its continued suppression." The Knight Institute has asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse Cannon's earlier orders blocking the report's release, and is also arguing that Cannon lacks the authority to enjoin its release in the first place.

In a notable footnote, Cannon acknowledged that her ruling could be appealed and potentially overturned, writing that "this Court will follow whatever mandates come from a higher court." Federal judges do not typically take the time to affirm this practice in written orders, suggesting awareness of the likely appellate challenge ahead.

Federal regulations require special counsels to provide the attorney general with a report explaining their prosecution or declination decisions once their work concludes. Final reports from previous special counsels have been made public after their investigations ended.

Robert Hur's report on former President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents was released despite not leading to charges — though it was notably critical of Biden, describing him as potentially appearing to a jury as "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Former special counsel John Durham's report on the origins of the FBI's Russia investigation was also made public, even though the three prosecutions it yielded resulted in two acquittals and one guilty plea.

The first volume of Smith's report, covering the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, was made public days before Trump's second inauguration in January. Smith testified before Congress last month about that investigation, but said he was barred from discussing the classified documents case because of ongoing proceedings.

The contrasting treatment of these reports — some released, Volume II permanently blocked — has fueled debate about whether the legal system applies different standards depending on the political stature of the subject under investigation.

The Cannon ruling comes amid a broader pattern of tension between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary. The Supreme Court recently struck down Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in what legal analysts described as the biggest blow to his trade agenda. In response, Trump issued new tariffs under a different legal authority, Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act.

Separately, reports indicate the Trump administration fired a top federal prosecutor in Eastern Virginia shortly after he was hired by judges, raising further questions about the boundaries between executive power and judicial independence. In Minneapolis, Trump's immigration enforcement surge has prompted legal challenges touching at least six of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, from the First Amendment to the Tenth.

These parallel conflicts underscore a recurring theme of Trump's second term: the testing of institutional boundaries between the executive branch, Congress, and the courts. Whether through tariff policy, immigration enforcement, or the suppression of a special counsel's report, each dispute forces the legal system to define — and often redefine — the limits of presidential power.