Appeals Court Rejects Bid to Block Release of Special Counsel Report on Trump

(Left) Special counsel Jack Smith delivers remarks in Washington on Aug. 1, 2023. (Right) Former President Donald Trump attends his trial in New York State Supreme Court in New York City on Dec. 7, 2023. Drew Angerer, David Dee Delgado/Getty Images

A federal appeals court on Thursday denied a bid to block the release of special counsel Jack Smith’s final report on the president-elect’s alleged efforts to subvert the 2020 election results.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta has now allowed the Department of Justice to release the report, without specifying when it would be made public.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon had previously blocked the release of Smith’s two-volume report, which detailed the investigation into Trump’s alleged attempts to interfere with the 2020 election results and his alleged retention of classified documents after leaving office during his first presidential term.

Cannon has said that her order would expire within three days if the appeals court denied the emergency request to block the release.

In a Thursday ruling, the appeals court invited the Department of Justice to appeal if it wants to challenge Cannon’s order.

Thursday’s ruling came after Trump’s two former co-defendants in the classified documents case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, asked the appeals court to block the release of the report, arguing it would interfere with their ongoing prosecution.

The release appears to focus only on the first volume of the report, as Attorney General Merrick Garland had decided not to release the portion focused on classified documents while the criminal proceedings against Nauta and De Oliveira are still ongoing.

Smith dropped both cases after Trump won a second presidential term in the 2024 election, citing the Department of Justice’s policy against prosecuting a sitting president. The special counsel also said that the department’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution remains unchanged.

Trump’s lawyers told Garland in a Jan. 6 letter that they had reviewed a draft of the report and identified some issues. They argued that releasing the report would be “imprudent and unlawful.”

“The Draft Report violates fundamental norms regarding the presumption of innocence, including with respect to third parties unnecessarily impugned by Smith’s false claims,” the lawyers said.

They stated that releasing the report would violate the Presidential Transition Act and the doctrine of presidential immunity. Trump’s lawyers also argued that Smith lacked authority to issue the report due to his alleged invalid appointment.

“Smith was not validly appointed, and Congress did not provide funding for his improper mission. No statute authorized you to deploy a private attorney against President Trump and others, and Smith functioned as a principal officer acting without the necessary Senate confirmation,” they wrote in the letter.

Reuters and Jack Phillips contributed to this report.