A federal judge has permanently barred the public release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents, closing off access to findings that once formed the basis of what was widely considered the most legally perilous of the four criminal cases the Republican faced.
The ruling ensures that the contents of Smith’s investigation into Trump’s alleged hoarding of classified materials will not be disclosed, even though the case had drawn intense national scrutiny and carried significant legal and political consequences.
The classified documents case was once considered the most serious of the four criminal cases against Trump.
It accused Trump of repeatedly enlisting aides and lawyers to help him hide records demanded by investigators and cavalierly showing off a Pentagon “plan of attack” and classified map.
US District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, granted a request from the President to keep under wraps the report on an investigation alleging Trump stored sensitive documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House following his first term and obstructed government efforts to get them back.
Smith and his team produced a two-volume report on the classified documents investigation and a separate probe into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election after he lost to Joe Biden.
Both investigations produced indictments that were abandoned by Smith’s team after Trump’s November 2024 election win in light of longstanding Justice Department legal opinions that say sitting presidents cannot face federal prosecution.
The first volume of Smith’s report on Trump’s 2020 election interference case was released last year shortly before Trump returned to the White House.
Smith has defended his decision to bring those charges, saying he believes they would have resulted in a conviction had voters not elected Trump in 2024.
The Trump administration has characterized Smith’s investigation as politically motivated and said in recent court papers that the report belongs in the “dustbin of history.”
Cannon’s order, however, blocking the release also applies to Bondi’s successors at the Justice Department. Cannon, who in 2024 dismissed the case after concluding that Smith was unlawfully appointed after multiple other favorable rulings for Trump, said the release of the report would present a “manifest injustice” to the president and his two co-defendants.
“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.”
Aileen Cannon
First Amendment Group Likely To Continue Fight In Higher Courts
A First Amendment group and watchdog organization that have been pressing for the report’s release could presumably continue to fight in higher courts for it become public.
Cannon wrote that though it is true that special counsels have historically released reports at the conclusion of their work, they have done so either after electing not to bring charges in a particular case or “after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial.”
Though Cannon suggested that an adjudication of guilt typically precedes the release of a special counsel report, there have been instances in which defendants charged by a special counsel have been acquitted at trial and the allegations against them have nonetheless been subsequently rehashed in a publicly released report.
Cannon last year granted a defense request to at least temporarily halt the release of the report dealing with the classified documents case. That edict meant that Smith could not discuss the substance of that investigation when he testified last month before the House Judiciary Committee.
The federal judge’s order now closes a chapter of the saga, at least in terms of public visibility.
