UNITED STATES, While asking the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal as a sanction, lawyers for President Donald Trump and his former co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case are defending U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon and criticizing what they described as “frivolous claims” made against her.
The legal filing comes as attorneys urged the appeals court to reject an appeal that sought what they called “extraordinary” relief related to the handling of Volume II of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report.
Before Judge Cannon permanently blocked the U.S. Department of Justice from releasing Volume II of Smith’s report, the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight had initiated separate appeals. The decision followed Cannon’s July 2024 dismissal of the Trump case on Appointments Clause grounds.
The organizations had attempted to intervene in the now-closed criminal case involving Trump, valet Waltine Nauta, and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira. Their effort aimed to lift an injunction that had been in place since January 2025 and allow a redacted version of Volume II of Smith’s report to be released publicly.
When Cannon denied the request nearly a year later, she left open the possibility for Trump and his former co-defendants to request a permanent injunction regarding the report.
One of the appeals challenges the denial of motions by outside parties seeking to intervene in the closed criminal case to pursue the release of a redacted version of Smith’s report that Cannon had reviewed privately. Oral arguments in that appeal are scheduled for late June.
A separate appeal involved a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to require the judge to halt proceedings before issuing a ruling. The petition also referenced requests from Nauta and De Oliveira seeking the destruction of Volume II of the report.
Trump’s legal team described that request as a call for the “constitutional expungement” of the report and argued that claims of urgency from the groups seeking the report’s release were not sufficient to justify mandamus relief, especially when other appellate options were available.
The attorneys also criticized what they described as speculative claims from organizations seeking to make Smith’s report public.
After the requested mandamus relief was not immediately granted, Judge Cannon issued a ruling sharply criticizing Smith for preparing the report. She stated that the report’s preparation represented a breach of the spirit of her dismissal order, if not an outright violation.
Cannon’s ruling permanently blocked U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and any future successors from releasing Volume II of the report.
