Aileen Cannon Issued Update on Release of Jack Smith’s Tr...

By Robert Alexander

Senior Crime & Court Reporter

ShareNewsweek is a Trust Project member

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has two months to decide whether to lift her order blocking release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s still-secret second report on President Donald Trump’s handling of classified material.

In the new filing and a joint status report submitted December 1, 2025, the Justice Department and former defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira notified Cannon that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has given her 60 days to resolve long-pending motions from transparency groups seeking access to the report.

Newsweek contacted DOJ and attorney for Nauta/De Oliveira for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Tuesday.

Why It Matters

People are eager to see Volume II because it is the only comprehensive, unreleased account of the federal investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents, and its findings could clarify unanswered questions about a case that was closed before ever reaching trial.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision to give Judge Cannon 60 days to decide whether to lift her order blocking release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s still-sealed second report on Donald Trump has transformed a long-stalled dispute into a time-sensitive test of judicial authority and public transparency.

The new deadline not only pressures a judge whose handling of the case has drawn repeated scrutiny but also raises broader questions about how much power a single district court can exercise over information of national significance and the historical record surrounding one of the most consequential federal inquiries in recent memory.

...

What To Know

The appellate panel issued its directive on November 3, 2025, holding two mandamus petitions "in abeyance for a period of 60 days to permit the Court to resolve the motions to intervene."

Counting forward from the filing of that order, Cannon’s deadline falls on or about January 2, 2026.

The timing aligns with a prior Newsweek analysis of the appellate court’s instructions and adds another point of pressure in a case where the judge’s handling has repeatedly drawn scrutiny.

Background Of The Dispute

Volume II of Smith’s final report—focused on alleged obstruction and the retention of national security documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence—has been withheld from release since January 21, 2025, when Cannon barred the Justice Department from publishing it outside the department.

Transparency groups including the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight argue that the injunction no longer serves any legal purpose following the dismissal of the underlying indictment in July 2024.

The Eleventh Circuit was asked in September 2025 to intervene after Cannon had not ruled for several months on motions to lift her order.

According to the status report, the appellate judges issued their November 3 directive "without ordering an answer from the Respondents pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21(b)(1)."

Parties’ Positions In The Status Report

In the new filing, both the Justice Department and counsel for Nauta and De Oliveira reiterate that they believe intervention by the transparency groups is improper.

They argue the court should "deny the pending motions without reaching the merits," and they "incorporate" arguments previously made in a March 14, 2025, filing.

The Justice Department also restated that it "understands and appreciates the arguments made" by the former defendants regarding what they describe as “extraordinary prejudice” that could arise from public release of Volume II and "does not object" to their position that Cannon's January 21 order should remain in effect.

If Cannon does lift the injunction, the parties agree the Justice Department should be required to provide 60 days' written notice to defense counsel before releasing any redacted version of the report.

The filing states that such notice would allow Nauta and De Oliveira "to seek appropriate relief from this Court if the Attorney General expressed an intention to release Volume II outside the Department of Justice."

The Knight Institute has maintained that Cannon’s original reasons for blocking release no longer apply.

In correspondence to Newsweek earlier this month, senior counsel Scott Wilkens said: "We’re pleased that today’s order recognizes that there is no legitimate reason for the court’s months-long delay in ruling on our request to make the special counsel’s report public. This report is of singular importance to the public ... and should be made public without further delay.”

Other organizations, including American Oversight and The New York Times, are pursuing parallel FOIA lawsuits seeking disclosure.

Cannon must now decide whether to lift, modify, or reaffirm her January 21 injunction before the early-January deadline.

If she denies the transparency groups' motions—or fails to rule within the 60-day window—the matter is likely to return immediately to the Eleventh Circuit, which has previously limited her authority in the Trump documents case.

The joint status report confirms that appellate scrutiny remains active in the dispute and signals that, for the first time since Cannon blocked release of Volume II, a firm timetable now governs how long the report can remain sealed.

What People Are Saying

Scott Wilkens, Senior Counsel, Knight First Amendment Institute said: "The First Amendment gives the public a right of access to this report, and the court should publish at least a redacted version of it right away."

Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute said: "There is no legitimate reason for the report’s continued suppression, and it should be posted on the court’s public docket without further delay."

What Happens Next

Judge Aileen Cannon now has until early January 2026 to decide whether to lift or maintain the injunction preventing release of Volume II of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report.

If she grants the motions from the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight, the Justice Department could begin preparing a redacted version for publication, subject to a proposed requirement that it give counsel for Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira 60 days' written notice before any release.

If Cannon denies the motions—or does not issue a ruling before the Eleventh Circuit’s deadline—the case will almost certainly return to the appellate court, which could revive the pending mandamus petitions or order further action to compel a decision.

Meanwhile, separate FOIA lawsuits in Washington, D.C. and New York seeking the same report will continue on their own tracks, meaning that even if Cannon rules promptly, additional appeals or redaction reviews could delay public disclosure into later next year.

Request Reprint & LicensingSubmit CorrectionView Editorial & AI Guidelines