U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who previously dismissed the federal criminal case against Donald Trump regarding his alleged mishandling of classified documents, has acknowledged that she lacks the authority to block the release of the first volume of special counsel Jack Smith’s final report. This portion of the report covers Smith’s investigation into Trump’s alleged election interference, which culminated in the January 6 Capitol attack.
In a ruling issued recently, Cannon conceded that she had no legal grounds to prevent the Department of Justice (DOJ) from releasing this part of the report, as it did not affect the due process rights of Trump’s co-defendants in the classified documents case—Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. The DOJ had confirmed that the first volume of the report did not contain information relevant to the classified documents case, and that only two minor references to the case appeared, neither of which involved the co-defendants or the charges against them. Cannon acknowledged these points in her ruling, stating that she had no reason to grant an injunction against the release of the first volume.
Despite this, Cannon maintained a temporary block on the second volume of Smith’s report, which deals specifically with the classified documents case. She ordered that this portion of the report not be shared with certain members of Congress, citing concerns that its release could compromise the fair trial rights of Nauta and De Oliveira. The DOJ had argued that limited disclosure to Congress was necessary to keep leadership informed about significant matters, but Cannon expressed reservations about releasing such sensitive information during ongoing criminal proceedings.
Cannon emphasized that public release of the second volume could potentially harm the legal rights of the defendants, noting that both the DOJ and the defense had agreed that releasing this part of the report would be inconsistent with the defendants’ fair trial rights. She also questioned the urgency of releasing the report to Congress, suggesting that a more reasonable approach would involve waiting for a hearing and judicial deliberation before any disclosure occurred.
Although the case is under appeal before the Eleventh Circuit, Cannon defended her jurisdiction over the matter, asserting that the appellate court’s ruling did not strip her of authority to address issues related to the release of the report. She pointed out that her decision to temporarily block the second volume was not in conflict with any orders from the appellate court, which had previously denied requests from Nauta and De Oliveira to prevent the release of the entire report.
Cannon’s ruling underscores the ongoing tension between the DOJ’s interest in transparency and the defendants’ right to a fair trial. While she acknowledged the public interest in the matter, her decision reflects a cautious approach to protecting the integrity of the legal process, particularly with respect to the defendants’ legal rights. The court will hold a hearing on the issue in the coming days, where further deliberation will likely take place on whether the second volume of the report should be disclosed to Congress or remain sealed for the time being.
