The Department of Justice, alongside two former co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case involving President Donald Trump, has provided a federal judge with a compelling reason to keep the second volume of Jack Smith’s report under wraps. This judge, known for her previous dismissal of the special counsel’s investigation, now faces pressure from multiple fronts.

In a status report submitted on Monday, Trump’s personal aide Waltine Nauta, Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira, and the DOJ acknowledged a recent directive from the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. This directive imposes a 60-day deadline for U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to address two groups’ attempts to intervene, which had been delayed by what the court deemed “undue delay.”

These interventions, sought by the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight, have been in limbo since February. This stalling followed the Trump administration DOJ’s decision to dismiss cases against Nauta and de Oliveira, along with terminating their pending appeals. The groups are pushing for the release of Volume II of the report, arguing that public interest necessitates transparency.

Law & Crime highlighted that both the Knight Institute and American Oversight petitioned the 11th Circuit to prompt Judge Cannon to act on their motions to intervene. Their goal is to appeal the January injunction, which currently obstructs efforts to disclose the report. Despite repeated reminders, Cannon has remained unresponsive to these motions.

Appointed by Trump, Judge Cannon previously dismissed the president’s case in July 2024 and nullified Smith’s role as special counsel. Her injunction in January cited concerns that publishing Volume II could compromise Nauta’s and de Oliveira’s rights to a fair trial, as both individuals were still entangled in active appeals at the 11th Circuit at that time.

When Cannon initially issued the injunction in January, she noted that Nauta and de Oliveira still had an active appeal at the 11th Circuit and that, as a result, releasing Volume II publicly would jeopardize their “due process rights to a fair trial[.]”

With no prospect of a trial during Trump’s second term as president, the DOJ and the president’s former co-defendants insisted Monday that there are still reasons for Cannon to keep the injunction in place and ensure Volume II doesn’t see the light of day.

The status report, submitted by U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason A. Reding Quiñones, asserted that the “intervention is improper” and suggested Cannon toss out the groups’ motions to intervene without “reaching the merits” of their arguments for vacating the injunction.

Nauta and de Oliveira “would suffer” prejudice of an “extraordinary” nature, the filing says.

In making this statement, the DOJ referred to the arguments made in a March status report, in which both the DOJ and the former defendants opposed lifting the injunction, with the Trump administration emphasizing that it’s up to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “discretion” to release the Mar-a-Lago report.

Nauta and de Oliveira went so far as to say Volume II “should be relegated to the dustbin of history, where it belongs, in order to prevent further unjust prejudice” following “approximately a year-and-a-half of rampant pretrial publicity and vilification after their indictments were sought by an unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor with unconstitutionally limitless funding[.]”

The DOJ reiterated Monday that it “understands and appreciates” this stance and said the government “does not object to their positions that the January 21, 2025 Order should remain in effect.”

In the event that Cannon were to lift the injunction, however, the DOJ asked that Nauta and de Oliveira have time and space to litigate — if Bondi signals she wants to release Volume II.

“The parties further agree that, should the Court lift its January 21, 2025 Order, the Court should require the Department of Justice to provide written notice to counsel for Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira sixty days prior to releasing a redacted version,” the filing concluded. “This would allow the defendants to seek appropriate relief from this Court if the Attorney General expressed an intention to release Volume II outside the Department of Justice.”