washington – A federal judge on Monday cleared the way for the Justice Department to release one of two volumes that make up special counsel Jack Smith’s final report detailing his investigations into President-elect Donald Trump.
Aileen Cannon, United States District Judge declined a request by Walt Nauta, a Trump aide, and Carlos de Oliveira, a former manager of the Mar-a-Lago estate, to block the release of Smith’s final report, which says “the court sees a basis insufficient to grant emergency injunctive relief as to Volume I.”
A federal appeals court separately refused to halt the release of the report after Cannon last week issued a temporary injunction preventing the Justice Department from making it public. His order remains in place until 12 a.m. Tuesday.
Federal prosecutors have said in court documents that the first volume of Smith’s report concerns the investigation of Trump’s alleged efforts to subvert the transfer of power after the 2020 election. The second involves allegations that the president-elect kept in secret documents after the end of his first term in 2021.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has said he will not publicly release the second part of the report, on the documents case, because the proceedings involving Nauta and de Oliveira are ongoing. John Irving, De Oliveira’s attorney, declined to comment on Cannon’s decision.
In her five page decisionCannon wrote that his “authority to enforce” the rulings is “limited” to the case of classified documents. The case related to the 2020 election was filed in Washington, DC, and was overseen by a different judge.
Still, Cannon said there are pending legal issues over the Justice Department’s proposed plan to give certain members of Congress access to the second volume of the report. Defense teams have argued against such a limited release, writing that doing so could risk leaks.
He set a hearing for Friday in his courtroom in Fort Pierce, Fla., to review that proposal.
Cannon wrote that the release of the second volume of the report, even on a limited basis, “runs the risk of irreversibly and substantially harming the legal rights of the defendants in this criminal proceeding. The court is unwilling to make this bet on the basis of widespread interest in Congress, at least not without a full briefing and hearing on the matter.”
He said the government has not “presented any justification to support the suggestion” that the second volume should be released to Congress now rather than “after a reasonable period for an expedited hearing and judicial deliberation on the matter “.
Jack Smith’s report
Cannon’s decision is the latest in a fast-paced legal battle over Smith’s report that is unfolding just days before Trump is sworn in for a second term. Once the president-elect returns to the White House on January 20, it is highly unlikely that the special counsel’s report will be made public.
Smith resigned from his post as special counsel last Friday, and Justice Department prosecutors are now overseeing all ongoing matters stemming from their investigations. Smith’s two investigations and prosecutions against Trump have since been dropped due to his victory in the November presidential election.
As is required for special counsels, the special counsel drafted and submitted a final report to the attorney general last week. Garland has pledged to make public all special counsel reports conducted while he is attorney general, and has so far kept that promise, even after the investigation into President Biden management of classified documents.
But Nauta and de Oliveira are fighting to keep the report shielded from the public. The two were indicted for allegedly obstructing the investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents. While Cannon dismissed the case against them on the grounds that the special counsel was unconstitutionally appointed, federal prosecutors are appealing his decision regarding Nauta and de Oliveira.
Defense attorneys argued that releasing the report to the public would unfairly prejudice potential future criminal proceedings against them. Defense attorneys simultaneously asked the 11th Circuit and Cannon last week to block the Justice Department from releasing the report.
cannon temporarily stopped publication of the report until the 11th Circuit resolved the issue. The appeals court then denied Nauta and de Oliveira’s request to keep Smith’s report secret, but Cannon’s order remained in place.
Federal prosecutors told the 11th Circuit that Garland would not release the portion of Smith’s report dealing with the documents case while proceedings involving the two co-defendants are ongoing, but planned to release the first volume related to the 2020 election case. They said they would make a redacted version of the second volume available for review only by top lawmakers on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and only if they agreed not to share information about it.
“This limited disclosure will further the public interest in keeping congressional leadership informed of an important matter within the department while safeguarding the interests of the defendants,” prosecutors wrote.
The Justice Department also told the district court in a archiving Sunday that “without reference to the defendants Nauta or De Oliveira, any conduct of them, any evidence against them or the charges against them, the first volume makes two references to the case of classified documents.”
Last week, Garland informed legislators that Smith had completed his investigation and presented the report in two volumes. The Attorney General reiterated his intention to release the first volume “to further the public interest in informing a co-equal branch and the public about this important matter,” but will not release the second volume “to avoid any risk of damage”. in Nauta and de Oliveira.
Although Trump is not a party before the 11th Circuit, his lawyers filed one friend of the court brief urge the 11th Circuit to block publication of Smith’s report.
The report, they stated, is “nothing less than another attempt at political success whose sole purpose is to disrupt the presidential transition and undermine President Trump’s exercise of executive authority.”