JACK SMITH REPORT, as President Donald Trump and the Department of Justice push to consign the former special counsel’s Mar-a-Lago findings to what they describe as the “dustbin of history,” two transparency groups are urging a federal appeals court to instead ensure the report is preserved and made public.
American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University have separately asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene and direct U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to place a redacted version of Volume II of Smith’s report on the public docket.
Volume I of Smith’s final report, which addressed the Jan. 6 investigation, has been publicly available since January 2025. Volume II, which focuses on the Mar-a-Lago investigation, has remained sealed within Cannon’s chambers and has never been released.
Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge who dismissed Trump’s Espionage Act prosecution and ruled that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel, has kept the second volume under seal for roughly a year. Initially, the justification was to avoid potential prejudice to Trump co-defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, whose appeals were still pending at the time.
Those appeals were later dropped after Trump’s inauguration, when the Trump administration abandoned the prosecutions. According to the Knight Institute, that development also eliminated any realistic possibility that Nauta or de Oliveira would face future charges.
One appellate filing argued that claims the former co-defendants remain in legal jeopardy are no longer credible, noting that the five-year statute of limitations on the charges would expire in 2028, before Trump leaves office. The brief described assertions of continuing due process concerns as disingenuous.
While acknowledging that the possibility of Trump facing Espionage Act charges after his second term is highly speculative, the groups argued there is no valid reason to prevent public access to Smith’s findings when no charges are pending and the statute of limitations has not yet run. They also pointed out that reports by special counsels Robert Mueller and Robert Hur were released to the public under similar circumstances.
The Knight Institute contended that Cannon’s refusal to allow intervention aimed at lifting the injunction and releasing Volume II was legally flawed. American Oversight made a similar argument, asserting that the original purpose of Cannon’s injunction, which is set to expire on Feb. 24, no longer exists.
Before that expiration date, Trump and his former co-defendants each urged Cannon to issue an order that would permanently block the DOJ from releasing Smith’s report and require it to be destroyed. American Oversight noted in its filing that although Cannon provisionally dissolved the injunction effective Feb. 24, 2026, she allowed the parties to challenge that relief, which they promptly did.
The filing warned that absent intervention, no party would oppose efforts to bury or destroy Volume II, as the United States is aligned with Trump and the former co-defendants on the issue. The group argued that intervention is necessary to protect the historical record and the public’s right to information.
Both American Oversight and the Knight Institute have also asked Cannon to pause proceedings until the 11th Circuit resolves the matter.
American Oversight Executive Director Chioma Chukwu said in a statement that the organization will not allow the president and his allies to suppress information that belongs to the public. She criticized Cannon for keeping the report sealed long after any legitimate justification had expired and said blocking challenges to the order enabled procedural delays.
Trump attorney Kendra Wharton dismissed both organizations as liberal groups lacking standing to seek access to what she characterized as the work product of an unlawfully appointed prosecutor. Wharton argued that releasing Volume II would improperly legitimize Smith’s investigation and cause irreparable harm to Trump and his former co-defendants.
