On Monday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a definitive order preventing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and her successors from disseminating special counsel Jack Smith’s report regarding the Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation beyond the Department of Justice. However, she refrained from instructing the destruction of Volume II of the report.

This ruling came ahead of the expiration of Cannon’s injunction and prior to any action from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on an urgent plea to pause the proceedings. The decision is a consequence of Cannon’s previous dismissal in July 2024 of the Espionage Act case against former President Donald Trump. Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, determined that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was invalid, thus nullifying all his actions. Consequently, she reasoned that Smith was never authorized to compile the report through discovery.

This outcome is likely a relief for Trump and his former co-defendants, valet Waltine Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira. Prior to the ruling, Trump’s lawyer, Kendra Wharton, argued that Smith’s report was “unlawfully prepared” following Cannon’s order, and labeled Volume II as an “ultra vires work product,” meaning it was created beyond Smith’s authority.

Trump’s legal team emphasized, “The appropriate remedy is the invalidation of all of Smith’s ultra vires acts, including his subsequent preparation and submission of Volume II,” advocating for this measure to “protect the integrity of the constitutional role of the judiciary.”

Judge Cannon seemed to concur with this viewpoint. She criticized Smith for at least violating the essence of her dismissal order by compiling a final report. She outlined these concerns in detail, highlighting how Smith and his team, separated from the Department of Justice, referred the criminal case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida and submitted Volume II to the Attorney General amid a flurry of emergency motions before the Presidential Transition. Cannon characterized this sequence as a significant breach of the spirit of the Dismissal Order, if not a direct violation. She stressed that the order focused on the dismissal of the Superseding Indictment, which was central to the criminal proceedings, and explained that all actions by Special Counsel Smith related to this case were ultra vires and should be nullified.

“Defendants moved for emergency relief to bar the impending release of Volume II, all the while Special Counsel Smith and his team separated from the Department of Justice; ‘referred’ the criminal case to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida; and delivered Volume II to the Attorney General in a flurry of emergency motion practice leading up to the Presidential Transition—leaving no counsel of record available with actual knowledge of the particulars of the complex factual record in this case,” Cannon recounted. “To say this chronology represents, at a minimum, a concerning breach of the spirit of the Dismissal Order is an understatement, if not an outright violation of it. The Dismissal Order focused on the charging document on which the criminal proceeding hinged—the Superseding Indictment—and dismissed it. But it went on to explain that ‘all’ of Special Counsel Smith’s actions in connection with this proceeding were ultra vires and must be set aside.

“Nevertheless,” the judge continued, “rather than seek a stay of the Order, or clarification, Special Counsel Smith and his team chose to circumvent it, for months, by taking the discovery generated in this case and compiling it in a final report for transmission to then-Attorney General Garland, to Congress, and then beyond. The Court need not countenance this brazen stratagem or effectively perpetuate the Special Counsel’s breach of this Court’s own order.”

Smith expressed in recent months that he desired to speak about Volume II during a deposition and in a public hearing before Congress, but on both occasions he noted that Cannon’s injunction was in place and he didn’t want to violate the judge’s order. To ensure his compliance, Smith said, he didn’t review Volume II before his testimony and didn’t address its findings about Trump’s allegedly willful retention of classified documents and obstruction of their return.

Now Cannon has hinted at a potential violation of her order based on the fact of the report’s existence itself. Further, the judge came up with a reason to say the report should not go public, unlike the John Durham, Robert Mueller, David Weiss, and Robert Hur reports.

“Moreover, while it is true that former special counsels have released final reports at the conclusion of their work, it appears they have done so either after electing not to bring charges at all or after adjudications of guilt by plea or trial. The Court strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt, at least not in a situation like this one, where the defendants contested the charges from the outset and still proclaim their innocence,” she said.

While the Durham report included information about acquitted individuals, the Mueller and Hur reports were issued while Trump and Joe Biden were president and neither were charged in those investigations.

But in the interest of “basic fairness” to Trump, Nauta, and de Oliveira and to prevent a “manifest injustice,” Cannon permanently blocked the DOJ and Bondi “or her successor(s)” from “releasing, sharing, or transmitting Volume II of the Final Report or any drafts of Volume II outside the Department of Justice” or “otherwise releasing, distributing, conveying, or sharing with anyone outside the Department of Justice any information or conclusions in Volume II or in drafts thereof.”

Cannon notably denied the argument embraced by Nauta and de Oliveira that Volume II should be destroyed, the fear of which animated emergency appeals by the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight. Both groups maintain that the public has a right to access at least a redacted version of Volume II, arguing that the report Cannon reviewed in her chambers will shed light on the allegations and investigation of a former candidate who is currently the U.S. president.