A federal judge in Florida has permanently blocked the Justice Department from making public former special counsel Jack Smith’s final report detailing his investigation into President Donald Trump’s handling of classified records at Mar-a-Lago. Smith, who has since entered private practice, did not immediately comment.
In a 15-page order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the report must remain confidential, citing her earlier determination that Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution. Cannon sharply criticized Smith for continuing to compile the report after the dismissal and described his actions as a “brazen stratagem,” writing, “Special Counsel Smith and his team went ahead for months, undeterred, preparing [the classified documents report] using discovery collected in connection with this proceeding and expending government funds in the process … To say this chronology represents, at a minimum, a concerning breach of the spirit of the Dismissal Order is an understatement, if not an outright violation of it.”
The judge concluded that publishing the document would undermine “basic notions of fairness and justice,” especially since the charges were dismissed before trial and no jury reached a verdict. She also raised concerns about the potential exposure of grand jury material and attorney-client communications protected under a 2023 court order. Cannon noted that while other special counsels have released summaries of their work, those instances generally followed either a decision not to file charges or a conviction secured by plea or trial. In this case, she said, there had been no adjudication of guilt.
Last July, Cannon dismissed the criminal case against Trump and his co-defendants after concluding that Smith’s role as special counsel was unlawfully established. Although the Justice Department initially appealed, it later withdrew the case following Trump’s return to the presidency.
Smith’s investigation had led to 41 felony counts accusing Trump of willfully retaining sensitive national security documents after leaving office in January 2021 and obstructing efforts to retrieve them. Prosecutors alleged that boxes of classified materials were stored in various areas of Mar-a-Lago, including spaces used for public events. Trump aides Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira were also charged in connection with moving and storing the records. In a closed-door congressional deposition in December, Smith stood by his findings. “Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power,” he said. He also told lawmakers that his team uncovered “powerful evidence that showed Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place.” He further stated that Trump “repeatedly tried to obstruct justice” to conceal the documents.
Cannon’s ruling emphasized that “all parties” now oppose releasing the report. After Trump began his second term, the Justice Department adopted the position that it should remain undisclosed. Trump’s former co-defendants also objected. Trump’s attorney, Kendra Wharton, praised the decision, saying, “Judge Cannon’s courage and judicial resolve on these important due process issues should be recognized and taught in law school classrooms across America. Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed and his unlawful investigation was improperly funded with tens of millions of U.S. taxpayers’ hard earned dollars. Any and all fruit of Smith’s poisonous tree should be treated accordingly and should never see the light of day.”
The nonprofit American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute sought to intervene in the case to argue for disclosure, but Cannon denied their request. Their appeal is pending before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Scott Wilkens of the Knight Institute criticized the decision, stating, “Judge Cannon’s decision to permanently block the release of this extraordinarily significant report is impossible to square with the First Amendment and the common law. There is no legitimate basis for its continued suppression.” Chioma Chukwu of American Oversight similarly argued that the public deserves access to findings funded by taxpayers.
Editorial credit: ryanmiller / Shutterstock.com
