WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Monday permanently barred the release of a report by special counsel Jack Smith on his investigation into President Donald Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
WATCH: Jack Smith defends criminal investigations into Trump during House hearing
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, granted a request from the Republican president to keep under wraps the report on a criminal investigation once seen as posing significant legal peril to Trump.
Smith and his team produced a two-volume report on investigations into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election after he lost to Joe Biden and his retention of classified documents at his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, after he left the White House following his first term.
Both investigations produced indictments that were abandoned by Smith’s team after Trump’s November 2024 election win in light of longstanding Justice Department legal opinions that say sitting presidents cannot face federal prosecution.
Cannon, who in 2024 dismissed the case after concluding that Smith was unlawfully appointed, said the release of the report would present a “manifest injustice” to Trump and his two co-defendants.
“Special Counsel Smith, acting without lawful authority, obtained an indictment in this action and initiated proceedings that resulted in a final order of dismissal of all charges,” she wrote. “As a result, the former defendants in this case, like any other defendant in this situation, still enjoy the presumption of innocence held sacrosanct in our constitutional order.”
She said that though it is true that special counsels have historically released reports at the conclusion of their work, they have done so either after electing not to bring charges in a particular case or “after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial.”
“The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt, at least not in a situation like this one, where the defendants contested the charges from the outset and still proclaim their innocence.”
