Appeals Court Denies Trump’s Request to Prevent Release of Special Counsel Report
The announcement seems to concentrate on a section of the report that outlines the inquiry into Trump’s purported efforts to meddle with the 2020 electoral outcomes.
A federal appeals court rejected a request from President-elect Donald Trump’s legal team on Thursday to prevent the publication of special counsel Jack Smith’s report concerning the president-elect’s alleged attempts to undermine the 2020 election results.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta has permitted the Department of Justice to publish the report, although it did not clarify the timing of its release.
Cannon indicated that her directive would lapse within three days if the appellate court dismissed the emergency request aimed at blocking the release.
In a ruling on Thursday, the appeals court encouraged the Department of Justice to file an appeal if it chooses to contest Cannon’s ruling.
This decision followed requests from Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, to halt the publication of Smith’s report regarding the case involving classified documents, for which they face charges. Trump and the two individuals have entered not guilty pleas to the accusations.
Related Stories
The release seemingly pertains only to the first volume of the report, as Attorney General Merrick Garland opted not to disseminate the segment related to classified documents while the criminal cases against Nauta and De Oliveira are still in progress. The two men contended that the report could adversely affect other legal proceedings against them.
Smith withdrew both cases following Trump’s reelection in the 2024 election, referencing the Department of Justice’s policy against prosecuting a sitting president. He also asserted that the department’s stance on the viability of the defendants’ prosecution remains unchanged.
“The Draft Report infringes upon fundamental principles regarding the presumption of innocence, particularly concerning third parties who have been unfairly disparaged by Smith’s inaccurate assertions,” the attorneys argued.
They maintained that releasing the report would breach the Presidential Transition Act as well as the doctrine of presidential immunity. Trump’s lawyers also claimed that Smith lacked the jurisdiction to produce the report due to his purportedly illegitimate appointment.
“Smith was not properly appointed, and Congress did not allocate funds for his improper undertaking. No statute authorized you to assign a private attorney against President Trump and others, and Smith operated as a principal officer acting without the necessary Senate confirmation,” they stated in the correspondence.
Reuters and Jack Phillips contributed to this report.
