A federal judge in Florida has issued a sweeping order that could keep a key chapter of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation out of public view indefinitely.

In a new ruling, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon barred the Department of Justice — including any future administration — from releasing Volume Two of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report related to the classified documents and obstruction case involving Donald Trump.

What the Order Does

Volume One of Smith’s report, which addressed the election interference investigation, was previously made public. Volume Two concerns the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case — including alleged violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction-related charges.

Judge Cannon’s latest order not only blocks the current Justice Department from releasing the report, but explicitly prohibits future Attorneys General from doing so. Legal observers note that such forward-looking restrictions are highly unusual, particularly when applied to executive branch reporting obligations.

In her opinion, Cannon reaffirmed her earlier position that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful and unconstitutional — a ruling that led her to dismiss the underlying indictment. Because she found Smith’s appointment invalid, she concluded that his work product, including Volume Two of the report, should not be publicly disseminated.

Background on the Case

The Mar-a-Lago prosecution ran parallel to the election interference case filed in Washington, D.C., before Judge Tanya Chutkan. In Florida, Cannon presided over the classified documents matter from its early stages.

During the investigation phase, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed Cannon more than once for what it described as improper interference with the executive branch’s investigative authority. However, after the indictment was returned, Cannon ultimately dismissed the case on constitutional grounds, holding that Smith required Senate confirmation to serve as special counsel.

That interpretation diverges from longstanding Justice Department practice and prior judicial precedent recognizing the authority of Attorneys General to appoint special counsels without Senate confirmation.

Lack of Adversarial Opposition

One aspect of the ruling drawing attention is the absence of an opposing advocate in court. Media organizations and watchdog groups — including the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight — sought to intervene to argue in favor of public release. Cannon declined to grant them intervention status.

With the current Department of Justice not contesting the motion to block release, there was effectively no adversarial presentation before the court. Some legal analysts argue that when both sides in a criminal matter align, courts often appoint independent counsel to ensure a balanced record. Cannon did not do so.

The Broader Legal Questions

Cannon justified her ruling in part by citing concerns about “manifest injustice” and the presumption of innocence, given that the indictment did not result in a conviction. She suggested that releasing the report would unfairly prejudice former defendants.

Critics counter that special counsel reports historically have been released regardless of whether charges resulted in convictions. They point to prior examples where investigative findings were published even when prosecutors declined to bring charges.

The most consequential portion of Cannon’s order may be its prospective scope. By attempting to bind future Justice Departments, the ruling raises separation-of-powers concerns that are likely to be examined on appeal.

What Happens Next

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to review related procedural issues, including whether outside groups should be allowed to intervene. If intervention is granted, the appellate court could ultimately weigh in on whether Cannon’s permanent injunction exceeds judicial authority.

For now, Volume Two of Jack Smith’s report remains sealed from public release — potentially indefinitely — unless overturned on appeal.

The case adds yet another chapter to the ongoing legal and constitutional disputes surrounding the Mar-a-Lago investigation, with broader implications for special counsel authority, executive transparency, and judicial oversight.