Judge Sides With Jack Smith?
A federal judge on Monday moved closer to allowing the release of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report related to his investigation into President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents — while granting the president a full 60-day window to challenge any disclosure.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that her earlier order preventing the Justice Department from sharing the Mar-a-Lago portion of Smith’s report with senior members of Congress will automatically expire on February 24.
However, the judge made clear that the report will not be released immediately.
Instead, Cannon aligned the timing with a request from President Trump and his co-defendants, who asked for a minimum 60-day period to seek legal relief before the report could be shared or made public.
Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Donald Trump during his first term, also rejected attempts by two outside watchdog organizations to force the report’s release.
The groups — American Oversight and Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute — argued they should be allowed to intervene in the criminal case based on Freedom of Information Act interests.
The judge firmly rejected that argument.
In her ruling, Cannon wrote that allowing third parties to insert themselves into an ongoing criminal matter based on FOIA claims is “unsupported by law” and “unprecedented in scope.” She also ruled that Smith’s report does not qualify as a judicial record subject to automatic public access.
Attorneys for the Knight First Amendment Institute said they plan to appeal, calling the report “extraordinarily significant” and claiming it should be released immediately.
Judge Cannon initially blocked the Justice Department from sharing the report with House and Senate Judiciary Committee leaders on Inauguration Day, shortly after President Trump was sworn in.
At the time, she criticized the move as a last-minute effort by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, whose term at the Justice Department was coming to an end.
Garland previously declined to release the report publicly, citing the ongoing prosecution of Trump aides Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira. He argued that releasing the report could interfere with their right to a fair trial.
Those charges were dropped shortly after President Trump returned to office, reigniting renewed calls from Democratic lawmakers and activist groups to publish Smith’s findings.
Pressure on Cannon has intensified in recent weeks, particularly ahead of Smith’s closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
Committee Democrats have attempted to intervene in the case alongside Trump, though Cannon has not yet ruled on their request.
In a letter sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland accused the administration of improperly withholding the report and called the continued delay “nonsensical.”
Raskin argued that because the charges against Trump’s former aides were dismissed months ago, there is no remaining legal basis for keeping the report from Congress or the American public — even as Smith is permitted to testify about the investigation behind closed doors.
Meanwhile, American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after months passed without a ruling from Cannon on their motions.
A three-judge appellate panel later agreed that the delay was excessive and instructed Cannon to fully resolve the matter within 60 days.
The classified documents case was one of two federal prosecutions pursued by former special counsel Jack Smith against President Trump.
The second case involved allegations tied to the 2020 election — a prosecution that also failed to reach trial.
During the Mar-a-Lago search, federal agents claimed they found approximately 300 documents bearing classified markings. Prosecutors alleged Trump’s aides assisted in moving and storing the materials on the property.
President Trump also previously faced state-level charges in Georgia, which were later dismissed, and in New York, where he was convicted on falsifying business records charges and received an unconditional discharge — a sentence that included no jail time, fines, or probation.
