Trump Advocates for Judge Cannon, Dismisses Allegations as Baseless and Calls for Sanctions

Lawyers representing former President Donald Trump and his ex-co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case have urged the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal that seeks what they describe as “extraordinary” assistance. In their arguments, they defended U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, criticizing what they termed “frivolous claims” against her.

Judge Cannon had previously issued a permanent block on the Department of Justice from releasing Volume II of the report by former special counsel Jack Smith. This decision followed her July 2024 dismissal of the Trump case based on Appointments Clause grounds. In response, the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight initiated two separate appeals.

These organizations attempted to intervene in the concluded case against Trump, his valet Waltine Nauta, and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira. Their goal was to lift an injunction that Judge Cannon had maintained since January 2025, thus allowing for the public release of Volume II. Although the motion was denied nearly a year later, Judge Cannon left open the possibility for Trump and his former co-defendants to pursue a permanent injunction.

One of the appeals questions the denial of motions by nonparties to intervene in the closed criminal case with the aim of releasing a redacted version of Smith’s report, which Judge Cannon had reviewed privately. This appeal is scheduled for oral arguments in late June.

The second appeal, a petition for a writ of mandamus, requests the 11th Circuit to compel the Trump-appointed judge to cease proceedings before making a ruling. This appeal particularly highlights Nauta and De Oliveira’s request for the “destruction” of Volume II.

Trump’s legal team downplayed that request as one for the “constitutional expungement” of the report, said an “unfounded sense of urgency” wasn’t enough for mandamus relief when other appellate options existed, and dismissed the “highly speculative and bombastic claims” of “liberal organizations” and “purported” nonpartisan nonprofits that seek to unmuzzle Smith.

When “extraordinary” mandamus relief did not immediately come, Cannon lowered the boom on Smith, pointedly criticizing him for preparing the report in the first place in a “breach of the spirt,” “if not an outright violation” of her dismissal order, and permanently blocked U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and her successors from releasing Volume II.

What Cannon did not do is order the destruction of Volume II, and that has Trump and his former co-defendants taking something of a victory lap at the 11th Circuit. The doomsday “destruction” scenario contemplated by the petitioners, cited prominently to support the relief they sought, did not come to pass, and that makes the mandamus petition for a stay moot and fit for dismissal, court documents said Thursday.

Of particular concern for attorneys Kendra Wharton, Richard Klugh, and John Irving was the groups’ “rhetoric” that Cannon “acted to obstruct appellate review” by ruling when she did, before her injunction was automatically set to expire.

“Petitioners now baselessly accuse the District Court of ‘obstruct[ing] this Court’s appellate jurisdiction’ and ‘abus[ing] judicial power’ by ruling on the then-pending motions. But the District Court expressly addressed its jurisdiction when ruling on the pending motions, and noted ‘there is no pending notice of appeal that divests this Court of jurisdiction to enter this order,’” the filing said, slamming as an “extraordinary exercise in sanctionable conjecture” the notion that mandamus is still necessary because Cannon could take further action.

In a footnote, the lawyers encouraged the 11th Circuit to dismiss the petition as an “appropriate sanction” for making statements with “no reasonable factual basis” for the claims.

“Indeed, the District Court has expressly denied destruction relief, which is not presently challenged, and Petitioners identify no concrete basis for presuming that there will be any future challenge or forthcoming motion for relief,” the filing went on, inviting the “imposition of sanctions against Petitioners for their frivolous claims and statements.”