Judge Cannon Permanently Bars Release of Special Counsel’s Report on Trump’s Classified Documents
Fort Pierce, Monday, 23 February 2026.
Citing “irreparable damage” to the president, Judge Cannon permanently blocked the special counsel’s classified documents report, sharply rebuking Jack Smith for a “brazen stratagem” in drafting it.
Judicial Blockade on Transparency
On Monday, February 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a permanent order preventing the Department of Justice from releasing Volume II of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report [1][4]. The ruling, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, argues that disseminating the findings would inflict “irreparable damage” on President Donald Trump and his former co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira [2][4]. Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, strongly criticized Smith’s actions in her 15-page ruling, characterizing the special counsel’s decision to compile the report after she had already dismissed the underlying case in July 2024 as a “brazen stratagem” [2][3]. According to Cannon, releasing discovery materials from a case that did not result in a guilty verdict—and was voided due to what she deemed an unlawful appointment—would violate “basic notions of fairness and justice” [4].
Procedural History and Constitutional Challenges
The legal conflict stems from Judge Cannon’s earlier decision in July 2024 to dismiss the classified documents case entirely, ruling that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause [5]. While the Justice Department initially appealed this ruling, the landscape shifted significantly after Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election [1][2]. Consequently, Smith moved to drop charges against Trump prior to the inauguration but continued pursuing the case against his aides, Nauta and De Oliveira, until those charges were also dropped once Trump took office [2]. Judge Cannon stated that releasing the report now would create a “manifest injustice” given that the charges were dismissed and no determination of guilt was ever reached [5].
The Tale of Two Reports
Despite the case’s dismissal, Smith submitted a comprehensive two-volume report to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland before resigning his post in early 2025 [3]. While Volume I, which detailed allegations regarding the 2020 election interference, was released to the public in January 2025, Volume II remained under seal due to the ongoing legal maneuverings of the defendants [3][4]. Monday’s ruling ensures that the detailed evidence regarding the retention of national security materials at Mar-a-Lago remains outside the public domain [1]. Cannon specifically barred the release of the report outside the Justice Department, citing Attorney General Bondi’s deliberative-process determination in addition to the unlawful appointment issue [1].
Ongoing Appeals and Congressional Testimony
The push for transparency has been led by Democratic lawmakers and groups such as the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight, whose efforts to intervene were rebuffed by Judge Cannon [2]. The Knight First Amendment Institute has since filed an appeal seeking to overturn the decision [2]. Conversely, Cannon denied a request from Trump’s co-defendants to have the report destroyed entirely, leaving the document in existence but legally sequestered [3]. In the absence of the report, public record relies on congressional testimonies; Smith, who launched a private law practice in January 2026, testified in a closed-door deposition in December 2025 that there was “powerful evidence” of willful retention of classified documents in unsecured locations, including a bathroom and a ballroom [1].