Appeals Court Sets Deadline for Judge Cannon as Fight Over Trump Records Intensifies

WASHINGTON — A long-running legal battle over the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigative records entered a decisive phase this month, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ordered District Judge Aileen M. Cannon to rule within 60 days on whether the public may obtain a confidential report detailing the government’s now-dismissed case involving classified documents found at former President Donald J. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

The records, sometimes referred to as “Volume Two” of the special counsel’s investigative findings, were sought through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute. A separate portion of Smith’s work — related to the federal election interference case in Washington — was released publicly last year with approval from the presiding judge in that matter.

The Mar-a-Lago report, however, has remained sealed during extended litigation, largely due to concerns that releasing detailed investigative materials could prejudice potential jurors in related criminal proceedings. Those cases, involving two Trump aides, were ultimately dropped by the Justice Department earlier this year, leaving no pending prosecutions connected to the Mar-a-Lago search.

With those obstacles gone, advocates argue that the rationale for continued secrecy has evaporated. “With no trial on the horizon, the government’s prior justification no longer applies,” said one lawyer familiar with the case. Public-interest groups have argued that the report is a matter of significant historical and civic importance, documenting a high-profile investigation conducted at public expense.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump, who recently moved to intervene in the lawsuit, have advanced several arguments for continued withholding, including claims that the materials contain grand jury information and national security–related details that should remain confidential. They have also revived a legal argument — rejected repeatedly in higher courts — that Mr. Smith was improperly appointed and therefore lacked authority to issue subpoenas or produce investigative reports.

Legal experts say those claims face steep hurdles. No federal appeals court has endorsed the view that the special counsel lacks lawful authority, and the 11th Circuit previously reversed Judge Cannon in 2022 when she attempted to limit the Justice Department’s access to materials seized from Mar-a-Lago.

“The underlying investigation was valid, the subpoenas were valid, and the special counsel’s appointment has been recognized by multiple courts,” said one former federal prosecutor. “It would be difficult to justify blocking release solely on that basis.”

Still, Judge Cannon’s handling of earlier Trump-related matters has drawn scrutiny, and it remains unclear how she will rule. The appeals court has set mid-January as the effective deadline for her decision, signaling that if she does not act, the panel may step in.

Transparency advocates say the public deserves access after years of secrecy surrounding an inquiry that resulted in a 37-count indictment before the case was dismissed. Much of the investigative narrative is already known through court filings and public reporting, but the full report could shed further light on internal deliberations and witness accounts.

If Judge Cannon declines to release the material, the dispute is expected to return to the 11th Circuit, where judges have previously shown impatience with delays in the case.

For now, both sides are preparing for a ruling that could shape public understanding of one of the most consequential federal investigations in recent history.