11th Circuit Deals Trump a Blow, Rejects Bid to Halt Special Counsel Report on Federal Cases

An 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has ruled against President-elect Donald Trump’s attempt to prevent Attorney General Merrick Garland from releasing a final report by special counsel Jack Smith regarding Trump’s classified documents case. This decision comes in light of a ruling by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, which temporarily halts the report’s publication until Sunday at the earliest.

This legal battle intensified when Trump aide Walt Nauta and former Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira filed an emergency motion to block the report’s release. Trump’s attorneys supported this move, warning that the report could “illegally interfere with the presidential transition.” With just days left until Trump’s inauguration, he has been actively trying to manage his legal challenges, including a failed attempt to block a sentencing hearing in New York related to his conviction for falsifying business records.

On Wednesday, Trump petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of the sentencing, which was denied in a 5-4 decision. Trump may also seek Supreme Court intervention regarding Smith’s report. In a statement, Trump’s communication director, Steven Cheung, criticized the 11th Circuit’s ruling, asserting that it reflects a broader issue of political weaponization within the justice system.

In court documents, Garland indicated that he plans to release Smith’s report on the Washington election subversion case to ensure no prejudice occurs against Nauta and De Oliveira during their pending legal matters. He aims to share the Florida report only with leadership from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, citing the importance of informing these entities about significant issues.

Garland emphasized that making Volume One available to the public aligns with the interest of informing a co-equal branch of government. This statement contrasts with the arguments from Trump’s legal team, who have claimed that Smith is an unconstitutional appointee. They argued the report’s release would further perpetuate Smith’s alleged constitutional violations.

Garland dismissed these arguments, highlighting that while Cannon sided with the defense in July regarding the classified documents case, her decision does not apply nationwide. He stressed that the arguments presented undermine Garland’s authority as Attorney General rather than Smith’s role.

In a recent filing, Garland requested the appellate court clarify that their decision should be considered the final resolution, unless reviewed by the full appellate court or the Supreme Court. He also sought to vacate Cannon’s order to facilitate the immediate release of the election subversion report.

The appellate court reaffirmed Cannon’s ruling, leaving it intact and indicating that its decision is not necessarily the last word on the matter. This legal situation is notable as it deviates from standard protocols allowing special counsels to conclude by releasing a final report. Despite various findings from Smith’s investigation being made public, the final report is expected to provide comprehensive insights into Trump’s efforts to maintain power following the 2020 election.