NEED TO KNOW

• Judge Aileen Cannon permanently barred release of Jack Smith’s classified documents report one day before it was set to become public
• Both Bondi’s DOJ and Trump’s legal team agreed the report should never be released, calling Smith’s work “unlawful from its inception”
• Volume 1 covering the election interference case was released in January 2025, but Volume 2 has never been made public

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon permanently blocked the release of former Special Counsel Jack Smith‘s report on President Donald Trump‘s alleged mishandling of classified documents on Monday, issuing an order that bars the Justice Department from ever sharing its contents with anyone outside the agency.

The ruling came one day before the report’s second volume was scheduled to become public following the expiration of a temporary injunction Cannon had imposed in January 2025. It effectively ends a year-long legal battle over whether Americans would ever see the full findings of a criminal investigation that once represented significant legal peril for the sitting president.

“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.” — Judge Aileen Cannon

What the Order Does

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Cannon granted requests from Trump and his two former co-defendants — Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira — to permanently prohibit the release of Volume 2 of Smith’s final report. The order bars Attorney General Pam Bondi or any successor from “releasing, distributing, conveying, or sharing with anyone outside the Department of Justice any information or conclusions in Volume II or in drafts thereof.”

The ruling also noted that Volume 2 contains “voluminous discovery” still covered by a protective order from the early stages of the case, and that releasing the report would cause “irreparable damage” to the former defendants.

Cannon, who was appointed to the federal bench by Trump during his first term, has presided over the classified documents case since its inception and made a series of decisions that drew scrutiny from legal observers on both sides.

A Case Dismissed but Never Resolved

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The classified documents investigation stemmed from Trump’s retention of sensitive government records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, after leaving the White House. Smith’s team charged Trump in 2023 with multiple felony counts related to the documents and alleged obstruction of the federal probe. Trump pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing.

In July 2024, Cannon dismissed the entire case, ruling that Smith had been unlawfully appointed as special counsel. The Justice Department appealed, but dropped the appeal after Trump won the 2024 election under the longstanding DOJ policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. The charges against Nauta and de Oliveira were also dropped by a federal appeals court in February 2025.

Smith resigned on Jan. 10, 2025, before Trump’s second inauguration. Before leaving, he submitted a two-volume report to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. Volume 1, covering the election interference investigation, was released publicly on Jan. 14, 2025, and detailed Smith’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to convict Trump at trial had the prosecution been allowed to proceed.

Volume 2 — the classified documents findings — has never been made public.

All Parties Aligned Against Disclosure

What makes Monday’s ruling unusual in the broader landscape of special counsel investigations is that all parties before the court agreed the report should stay sealed. Under Bondi, the Justice Department abandoned its predecessor’s position and sided with Trump.

“Smith not only weaponized the Department of Justice against a leading presidential candidate in pursuit of an anti-democratic end, but he did so without legal authority.” — DOJ filing under AG Pam Bondi

In a January filing, prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida wrote that Smith’s investigation was “unlawful from its inception” and that Bondi had designated the report “an internal deliberative communication that is privileged and confidential.” The department’s position was blunt: the report “belongs in the dustbin of history.”

Trump’s personal legal team went further, asking Cannon to block “current, former and future” Justice Department officials from ever releasing the document. Attorney Kendra Wharton praised Monday’s ruling.

“Judge Cannon’s courage and judicial resolve on these important due process issues should be recognized and taught in law school classrooms across America.” — Kendra Wharton, Trump attorney

A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

Congressional Democrats Push Back

House Judiciary Committee Democrats, led by ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-MD), have argued for months that Bondi “suppressed Volume II with absolutely no justification” and accused the DOJ of contradicting its own precedent of publicly releasing special counsel reports.

“You continue to deprive Congress and the American people of the single most important and comprehensive account of that investigation, in clear violation of DOJ’s consistent practice of publicly releasing reports of special counsel investigations.” — Rep. Jamie Raskin

Democrats highlighted an inconsistency in the DOJ’s position: Bondi’s department authorized Smith to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in January 2026, where he spent more than eight hours behind closed doors — but simultaneously refused to release the written report covering the same investigation.

During a public hearing last month, Smith acknowledged that the DOJ’s interpretation of Cannon’s order effectively barred him from discussing the report’s substance publicly.

Transparency advocates have also raised concerns. American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute filed motions to intervene in the case and warned that any effort to destroy the report would violate the Federal Records Act.

The Precedent Question

Cannon noted in her ruling that while previous special counsels have released final reports, they have typically done so either after declining to bring charges or after convictions. She wrote that she could not find a precedent for releasing a report after charges were filed, contested by defendants and ultimately dismissed without a finding of guilt.

Supporters of the ruling argue it protects fundamental due process. When charges are dismissed without trial, defendants retain their presumption of innocence, and a prosecutorial report presenting one-sided conclusions could amount to punishment without adjudication.

Critics counter that the circumstances here are unique. The charges were not dismissed on the merits or for lack of evidence — they were dropped because DOJ policy prohibits prosecuting a sitting president. Volume 1, covering the election case, was released under identical legal circumstances without a court order blocking it. And the special counsel regulations that authorized Smith’s appointment explicitly contemplate a final public report.

The question of whether Cannon’s original dismissal of the case — based on the unlawful appointment theory — was itself legally sound was never resolved on appeal, since the DOJ dropped the appeal after Trump’s election.

When a criminal investigation is shut down not because of insufficient evidence but because the target won the presidency, does sealing the final report protect due process — or does it ensure the public never learns what the investigation found?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from CBS News’ coverage of the ruling, The Hill’s reporting on Cannon’s decision, Fox News’ coverage of the order, the Associated Press via Yahoo News, MSNBC’s legal analysis, NPR’s reporting on Smith’s Volume 1 findings, CNN’s coverage of the election interference report, U.S. News’ reporting on DOJ’s “dustbin of history” filing, Courthouse News’ coverage of House Democrat demands, NOTUS’ reporting on the Bondi-Smith conflict, American Oversight’s Federal Records Act warning, TIME’s analysis of Volume 1, and the House Judiciary Committee Democrats’ letter to Bondi.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10