In a striking January 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon blocked the release of Volume II of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report - a decision that has thrown the Department of Justice, Congress, and the presidency itself into a legal and constitutional deadlock.
This unprecedented case unfolds at the intersection of politics, justice, and power.
🕵️♂️ A Special Counsel Report, Sealed in Controversy
Volume II of Jack Smith’s Special Counsel Report was intended to be shared - in redacted form - with the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
Instead, Judge Cannon ruled that its release would pose an unacceptable threat to the rights of defendants still under appeal, including Trump aides Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.
The volume contains sensitive materials: classified discovery evidence, privileged communications, video footage, search warrant data, and more - much of which has never entered the public record.
🧑⚖️ The Legal Argument: Due Process vs. Disclosure
The Department of Justice argued that sharing the report was a continuation of "historical practice."
But the court pushed back, noting no precedent for such disclosures before the conclusion of criminal proceedings.
Without a congressional subpoena or any enforceable confidentiality safeguards, Cannon ruled that even a private reading by committee leaders could lead to prejudicial leaks.
She emphasized that the defendants retain due process rights and deserve a fair trial free from outside influence.
🧨 The Trump Factor
Though the indictment against President-Elect Donald Trump was dismissed in July 2024, he remains at the center of the storm.
His legal team filed a motion to intervene or participate as amicus curiae, claiming that the Special Counsel’s continued actions amount to politically motivated lawfare.
Trump’s attorneys argued that releasing the report - even in part - during his transition to power would harm the presidency and violate constitutional protections.
Judge Cannon ultimately denied Trump’s motion to formally intervene, but permitted him to participate as an amicus party to support the challenge.
🧾 DOJ’s Push - And Resistance from the Court
The Department’s argument that Attorney General Merrick Garland needed to act before his tenure expired didn’t hold up in court.
Judge Cannon criticized the rationale, calling it unprecedented and unpersuasive.
She also noted that no actual request from Congress for the report had been documented - nor had any legislative purpose for the release been identified.
Without any enforceable limits or urgent legal necessity, she determined that the potential for harm outweighed any governmental interest.
🔒 A Historic Judicial Rebuke
The ruling is not just about one report - it sets a standard.
The judge cited constitutional rights, the DOJ’s own Justice Manual, and ethical rules to support the decision.
She emphasized that prosecutors have a duty to pursue justice, not publicity or political ends.
The injunction now bars the DOJ from releasing, transmitting, or otherwise disclosing any part of Volume II to anyone outside the Department, pending further orders.
🧭 What Comes Next?
As of now, the case remains under appeal in the Eleventh Circuit.
The DOJ’s ability to release Volume II will depend on future rulings - and political dynamics that may shift after President Trump’s inauguration.
But for now, Judge Cannon’s order stands as a powerful assertion of judicial oversight - and a warning against what she described as "unchecked disregard of restrictions" by prosecutors and executive officials.
