Federal Judge Blocks Release of Special Counsel’s Trump Report
A federal judge has temporarily halted the release of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on investigations into former President Donald Trump. The decision comes as an appeals court considers a challenge to the document’s disclosure.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, issued the ruling following an emergency request by defense lawyers. Trump’s legal team argued that the report would be one-sided and prejudicial.
The order applies to both volumes of the report, which are expected to cover two investigations: the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The release is now pending a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Special counsel Smith’s team has indicated plans to respond to the appeals court. The Justice Department has regulations governing special counsels and their reports, with public disclosure typically at the discretion of the attorney general.
Trump’s lawyers, including Todd Blanche, have urged Attorney General Merrick Garland to block the report’s release. They have also requested Smith’s removal and characterized the report as a political stunt.
Co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira have joined Trump in seeking to block the report’s release, arguing that it could affect pending appeals.
This development follows the dismissal of charges against Trump in the classified documents case and the narrowing of the election interference case by a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. Smith’s team subsequently dropped both cases after Trump’s presidential victory, citing DOJ policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.
The Justice Department has not yet commented on the judge’s decision. Attorney General Garland has previously made special counsel reports public, including those by Robert Hur and John Durham.
As the legal battle continues, the release of the special counsel’s report remains in limbo, with potential significant implications for both the legal and political landscape.