In recent developments, former President Donald Trump has taken a legal step by submitting court documents on Tuesday. These documents request Judge Aileen Cannon’s permission for Trump to participate as amicus curiae, or a “friend of the court,” in order to support his former co-defendants’ efforts to keep Volume II of Jack Smith’s report confidential.

The filing stated, “President Trump hereby moves for leave to participate in the proceedings as amicus curiae for the limited purpose of reaffirming and incorporating by reference his prior legal arguments to the Court, as well as those made by co-defendants Nauta and De Oliveira, that Volume II of Jack Smith’s Final Report should not be made public.” It further emphasized that Trump’s involvement would not delay proceedings or prejudice any party, noting consistency with the Court’s earlier decision granting him amicus status regarding a previous order dated January 21, 2025.

In conclusion, the document urged the Court to allow Trump to partake as amicus curiae to reinforce the legal arguments he previously presented, alongside those of Nauta and De Oliveira. It also called for the rejection of motions by American Oversight and the Knight Institute, which seek to intervene and potentially extend Jack Smith’s criminal investigations and proceedings.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice, along with two former co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case involving Trump, have collectively provided the federal judge—known for previously disrupting the special counsel’s investigation—with justifications to maintain the confidentiality of the second volume of Jack Smith’s report.

The DOJ and two former Mar-a-Lago classified documents case co-defendants of President Donald Trump have jointly given the federal judge remembered for torpedoing the special counsel’s probe a reason to keep the second volume of Jack Smith’s report hidden from the public.

In a brief Monday status report, Trump valet Waltine Nauta, Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira, and the DOJ took stock of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ order last month. The order set a 60-day deadline for U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to rule on two groups’ attempts to intervene, following her “undue delay.”

The would-be interventions of the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight have sat untouched since February, not long after the newly minted Trump administration DOJ voluntarily tossed the cases against Nauta and de Oliveira, also ending their active appeals.

As Law&Crime reported, both the Knight Institute and American Oversight went to the 11th Circuit asking the appellate court to at least nudge Cannon to rule on their attempts to intervene for the purpose of lifting a January injunction, so there would be something for the groups to appeal as they seek disclosure of Volume II in the “public interest.” The appeal came after Cannon was unmoved by multiple reminders about the motions to intervene.

Cannon, a Trump appointee, threw out the president’s case in July 2024 and invalidated Smith’s appointment as special counsel. Several months later, the judge blocked the release of Smith’s Mar-a-Lago report.

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.”