A Striking Assertion of Judicial Authority (Image Credits: Compote.slate.com)
Fort Pierce, Florida – U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted motions to permanently enjoin the Department of Justice from releasing Volume II of former special counsel Jack Smith’s final report on the investigation into President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents.[1][2]
A Striking Assertion of Judicial Authority
Judge Cannon described the preparation of the report as a “brazen stratagem” that breached the spirit of her prior dismissal order.[3][1] She issued the ruling on February 23, 2026, siding with Trump co-defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira.[1]
The order prohibits Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DOJ, and related parties from sharing the report or its drafts outside the department. Cannon emphasized protections under a Rule 16 protective order from June 2023, which barred public disclosure of discovery materials without consent.[1] She argued that release would cause irreparable harm and undermine fairness, given no adjudication of guilt occurred.
This decision extends her July 15, 2024, dismissal of the case, which rested on Smith’s allegedly unconstitutional appointment.[1]
Roots in the Mar-a-Lago Documents Saga
The probe centered on classified materials Trump took to his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving office in 2021. Smith’s team indicted Trump, Nauta, and de Oliveira, but Cannon dismissed charges in 2024, a ruling Smith did not fully appeal.[2]
Volume I of Smith’s report, covering election interference, became public in January 2025. Volume II, however, details the documents investigation, including transcripts, videos, and grand jury materials.[1]
Smith recently testified before Congress that his work uncovered proof beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal activity, stating he would pursue similar cases regardless of political affiliation.[2]
Transparency Fight Heads to Appeals Court
The Knight First Amendment Institute sought the report’s release via FOIA starting in January 2025. Cannon denied their motion in December 2025, prompting an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.[2]
The appellate court expedited the case, scheduling oral arguments for June. Critics, including Knight’s Scott Wilkens, contend Cannon lacked jurisdiction post-case closure.[2]
- FOIA request filed January 2025.
- 11th Circuit intervention November 30, 2025.
- Cannon denial December 2025.
- Appeal oral arguments set for June 2026.
- Separate challenges from media and public interest groups pending.
Cannon’s Tenure Draws Scrutiny
Appointed by Trump in late 2020, Cannon has faced reversals in the documents case but upheld her core positions. Her rulings delayed proceedings and dismissed charges without precedent, prompting accusations of favoritism.[2]
Speculation persists about her potential elevation to higher courts, amid rumors of a Supreme Court vacancy this summer.[2] Trump has praised her past decisions publicly.
Yet legal observers highlight her unique stance on special counsel appointments, diverging from historical practice like the Mueller report’s release.[2]
Key Takeaways
- Cannon’s order enforces her 2024 dismissal and protective measures, prioritizing defendant rights.
- The report contains sensitive materials shielded from public view.
- 11th Circuit appeal could overturn the injunction, restoring transparency prospects.
Judge Cannon’s latest order underscores tensions between judicial finality and public accountability in high-stakes probes. As appeals unfold, the fate of these investigative details remains uncertain, testing boundaries of access to government records. What do you think about the balance between privacy and transparency here? Tell us in the comments.