Left: Judge Aileen Cannon (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida); Right: special counsel Jack Smith (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
On Thursday, a federal judge ruled in favor of the Department of Justice, leading to the dismissal of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by The New York Times. The lawsuit aimed for the public release of Volume II of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report related to his Mar-a-Lago case against President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Woods, appointed by Barack Obama and serving in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, clarified he would not challenge U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s authority concerning the permanent injunction she issued. Consequently, the Times’ FOIA lawsuit could not succeed.
“Because the Court declines to hold that Judge Cannon lacked jurisdiction to issue her injunction, the Court finds that the DOJ is not improperly withholding Volume II of the Special Counsel’s report,” wrote Woods. “The DOJ’s motion to dismiss in this action is therefore GRANTED.”
Back in July, the DOJ argued for the dismissal of the Times’ lawsuit, emphasizing that Cannon’s injunction remained active. The Times’ legal team argued that the injunction was legally invalid as Cannon allegedly overstepped her jurisdiction.
According to reports from Law&Crime, when Judge Cannon — who was appointed by Trump and dismissed the charges on his Mar-a-Lago classified documents case while nullifying Smith’s status as special counsel — enacted the injunction in January, Trump associates Waltine Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira were still engaged in an active appeal in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding their criminal cases.
A matter of days later, however, the DOJ, Nauta, and de Oliveira each agreed to dismiss the appeal, and charges were dropped. The 11th Circuit accordingly responded by jettisoning the case on Feb. 11.
In the aftermath, and while the Times’ FOIA lawsuit was ongoing, nonprofit groups filed motions to intervene in Cannon’s court in February, attempting to clear the way for the public disclosure of Volume II.
In July, the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight urged Cannon to rule on their requests by notifying her that it had been 90 days since their reply briefs hit the docket.
As Woods noted on Thursday — and despite the groups’ reminders — there has been no movement on Cannon’s front.
“The motions to intervene remain pending before Judge Cannon,” the judge said, adding that the Times did not “overcome the presumptive validity of Judge Cannon’s jurisdiction to issue the Permanent Injunction.”
Woods concluded that because the Knight Institute and American Oversight have sought to “modify[] or vacat[e]” the injunction and those efforts are still ongoing, amid Cannon’s inaction on the issue, he declined to “order the DOJ to take further action with respect to” the Times’ FOIA demand.
“The prospective intervenors in the Florida Criminal Case are currently representing the interests of those seeking disclosure of Volume II; the Court will not order the DOJ to do so as well,” the judge said.
Read the ruling in full here.
