A new legal fight is unfolding in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit over whether Volume Two of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report — the portion addressing the classified documents investigation involving Donald Trump — should be released or potentially withheld from public view. The dispute stems from proceedings before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who previously dismissed the classified documents indictment on constitutional grounds related to the special counsel’s appointment.
The underlying criminal case concerned allegations that Trump retained highly sensitive national security materials at Mar-a-Lago and obstructed efforts to recover them. Judge Cannon’s dismissal marked a significant departure from other federal rulings on the special counsel’s authority. After Trump won the presidential election, appellate litigation over the dismissal effectively became moot, leaving unresolved questions about the handling and release of investigative records, including Smith’s final report.
For months, no ruling was issued regarding whether Volume Two of the report should be publicly released with redactions. The 11th Circuit, which oversees federal courts in Florida, reportedly directed Judge Cannon to clarify the status of the materials so appellate review could proceed if necessary. The delay has drawn attention because special counsel reports historically have been released in some form, with classified or sensitive material appropriately redacted.
Complicating matters further, attorneys aligned with Trump have argued that certain records related to the investigation should not be disseminated and, in some filings, have urged that materials be suppressed. Meanwhile, the current Department of Justice has not opposed limitations on release in the same manner previous DOJ leadership might have, a posture that has fueled criticism from transparency advocates.
In response, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sought to intervene in the district court, arguing that the public has a right of access to judicial records and that any destruction or permanent sealing of documents would undermine transparency. The group filed an extraordinary petition for a writ of mandamus at the 11th Circuit, asking the appellate court to step in preemptively if necessary to preserve the records pending further review.
Legal scholars note that mandamus relief is rare and typically reserved for exceptional circumstances. One procedural complication is that appellate jurisdiction is generally triggered by a final ruling in the lower court. Because Judge Cannon has not yet definitively ruled on the petition to intervene or on the ultimate disposition of the report, the 11th Circuit faces a threshold question about whether it can or should act at this stage.
The broader debate touches on foundational principles of the adversarial system. Ordinarily, disputes are presented with opposing parties advancing competing arguments, allowing courts to resolve concrete legal questions. Critics argue that when both the defendant and the executive branch adopt similar positions on record suppression, the absence of an adversarial clash raises institutional concerns. Supporters of restraint counter that courts must adhere strictly to jurisdictional boundaries regardless of political implications.
At stake is not only the fate of one report but also the precedent governing public access to records in high-profile federal investigations. Whether the 11th Circuit intervenes, waits for a final district court order, or declines relief altogether, its handling of the matter will shape ongoing debates about executive power, judicial oversight and historical transparency in one of the most consequential legal chapters of the modern presidency.
