Executive Summary
- Judge Aileen Cannon permanently barred the release of Jack Smith’s final report.
- The ruling cited the unlawful appointment of the Special Counsel and potential "manifest injustice."
- President Trump’s legal team argued the report was biased and would cause irreparable harm.
- The decision follows the dismissal of federal cases against President Trump after his return to office.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has permanently barred the public release of a final report by former Special Counsel Jack Smith regarding his investigation into President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents. The ruling, issued on Monday, grants a motion filed by the President’s legal team to keep the findings sealed, effectively concluding the dispute over the documentation of the federal probe that resulted in criminal charges in 2023.
Judge Cannon, who originally dismissed the classified documents case in 2024 citing the unlawful appointment of the Special Counsel, stated that releasing the report would constitute a “manifest injustice” to President Trump and his co-defendants. In her decision, Judge Cannon concurred with the defense’s argument that the report was “inherently biased” and that its dissemination would cause “irreparably harm.” The judge emphasized that because Special Counsel Smith acted without lawful authority when obtaining the indictment, the release of his office’s final report was unwarranted.
The blocked report detailed Smith’s investigation into allegations that President Trump retained classified materials at his Mar-a-Lago residence after his first term and obstructed efforts to retrieve them. It also covered aspects of the separate inquiry into alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election. Following President Trump’s return to power, federal cases against him were dismissed. Reports indicate that last month, the President removed Department of Justice officials associated with Smith’s investigations.
Judicial & Institutional Implications
This ruling reinforces a significant judicial precedent regarding the authority and output of special counsels whose appointments are successfully challenged. By permanently sealing the report, the court has prioritized procedural adherence over public transparency regarding the investigative findings. This decision likely concludes the federal legal challenges concerning the President’s conduct during the investigations, solidifying the dismissal of the cases and limiting the historical public record of the special counsel’s work. It is important to note that these proceedings involved allegations, and despite the dismissal of charges, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
