Following repeated unsuccessful attempts to prompt U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to consider unveiling former special counsel Jack Smith’s comprehensive report on the Mar-a-Lago investigation concerning President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, a nonprofit organization has sought the intervention of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to compel Cannon’s action, something the appellate court has previously done.

The Knight First Amendment Institute contended on Tuesday that the case necessitates extraordinary relief via a writ of mandamus, pressing Cannon to make a decision on motions to intervene that have been pending for nearly six months.

“Mandamus relief is warranted here because the district court’s six-month delay in ruling on the Institute’s motion to intervene is manifestly unreasonable,” the filing began. “It is well-established that the common law and constitutional right of access to judicial records encompasses a right to prompt adjudication of access motions, in recognition of the fact that the postponement of disclosure undermines the benefit of public scrutiny and may have the same result as complete suppression. The district court’s failure to address the Institute’s access claims has already compromised the Institute’s rights, and each passing day constitutes an additional abridgement.”

As reported by Law&Crime, the Knight Institute and nonprofit watchdog American Oversight filed motions to intervene months after Trump’s inauguration, urging the Trump-appointed judge, who dismissed the president’s case and nullified Smith’s special counsel appointment, to rescind an injunction obstructing the release of Smith’s Mar-a-Lago report. When Cannon initially placed the injunction in January, she cited the fact that Trump valet Waltine Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira had an ongoing appeal at the 11th Circuit, suggesting that releasing Volume II publicly could endanger their “due process rights to a fair trial[.]”

Once Trump was back in office, the DOJ dropped the cases against the president’s former co-defendants Nauta and de Oliveira, prompting the nonprofits to renew their requests for the report’s release. Despite their motions to intervene and subsequent reminders to Cannon to issue a ruling, given that the Nauta and de Oliveira cases have been resolved, no decision has been rendered.

As recently as early September, a federal judge in New York handed the New York Times a loss in the newspaper’s efforts to bring Volume II of Smith’s report public through Freedom of Information Act litigation. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Gregory Woods noted that the “motions to intervene remain pending before Judge Cannon,” and he declined to second-guess whether the judge had jurisdiction issue her injunction. Woods found instead that the DOJ was “not improperly withholding Volume II of the Special Counsel’s report.”

The Knight Institute has now asked the 11th Circuit to force Cannon to rule, so the group can at least appeal a denial — if there is one — on an expedited basis.

“[T]he public interest in the disclosure of the report became weightier when then-former President Trump was re-elected—and, even more importantly, the fair-trial interests that once overcame the First Amendment right of access evaporated when this Court dismissed the criminal case against Nauta and De Oliveira on February 11, 2025,” the petition said. “At this point there is no significant likelihood that Nauta and De Oliveira will face trial. Again, this Court dismissed the case against them on February 11, 2025, on DOJ’s motion, and DOJ subsequently represented to the district court that it does not intend to revive the charges against them. If there is any risk at all that Nauta and De Oliveira will face trial, the risk is remote at best. Nor is there any significant risk that the release of Volume II will compromise their legitimate interests in other ways.”

Knight Institute executive director Jameel Jaffer, alleging that Cannon has “continued suppression” of the report for “no legitimate reason,” added in a statement that the 11th Circuit must act in the public’s interest.

“This report is of singular importance to the public because it addresses allegations of grave criminal conduct by the nation’s highest-ranking official,” Jaffer said. “There is no legitimate reason for the report’s continued suppression, and it should be posted on the court’s public docket without further delay.”