After months of inaction from Judge Aileen Cannon regarding motions connected to former special counsel Jack Smith’s report on classified documents at Mar-a-Lago involving President Donald Trump, an appellate panel has subtly criticized her for the “undue delay.” The panel has now set a timeline for Cannon, who previously dismissed the prosecution’s case, to make a decision.

On Monday, a trio of judges from the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals discussed petitions for writs of mandamus brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight.

The panel, which includes Judges Jill Pryor, appointed by Barack Obama, Britt Grant, appointed by Donald Trump, and Nancy Abudu, appointed by Joe Biden, refrained from granting the extraordinary relief requested. Instead, they implied that such measures might be necessary if Cannon fails to address the groups’ long-pending motions to intervene within a 60-day deadline.

The order began by acknowledging the petitions for writs of mandamus, which seek to challenge a district court order from January 21, 2025, that prevents the release of Volume II of the Special Counsel’s Final Report. The petitioners initially sought intervention at the district level in February, reminded Cannon in July after three months without progress, and turned to the appellate court in late September.

Now in November, the 11th Circuit highlighted that Cannon has yet to make a ruling or take further action on the motions. Consequently, the court recognized that American Oversight and the Knight Institute have shown there has been an “undue delay” in resolving their motions to intervene.

The appellate court said Cannon has 60 days to act, indicating that mandamus relief, compelling her to act, may come if she doesn’t.

“[T]he petitions for writs of mandamus are held in abeyance for a period of 60 days to allow the district court to fully resolve the motions,” the order concluded.

As Law&Crime reported previously, both the Knight Institute and American Oversight went to the 11th Circuit in the hopes that Cannon would, one way or another, be prompted to rule on whether or not to lift a January injunction, to at least have something to appeal.

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

When Cannon initially issued the injunction in January, she noted that Trump valet Waltine Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos 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[.]”

After Trump was in office again, the DOJ dismissed the cases against the president’s erstwhile co-defendants Nauta and de Oliveira, leading the two nonprofit groups to push for the report’s release. Despite the groups’ motions to intervene and despite their separate reminders for Cannon to issue a ruling, given that the Nauta and de Oliveira cases were over, no ruling came.

Now that the 11th Circuit has nudged Cannon to get it over with, the petitioners are hopeful that the public may soon learn more about Trump’s alleged “grave criminal conduct.”

“We’re pleased that today’s order recognizes that there is no legitimate reason for the court’s months-long delay in ruling on our request to make the special counsel’s report public,” Knight Institute senior counsel Scott Wilkins said in a statement. “This report is of singular importance to the public because it addresses allegations of grave criminal conduct by the nation’s highest-ranking official, and should be made public without further delay.”

American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu separately applauded the 11th Circuit’s “calling out” of Cannon.

“As the Trump administration targets its perceived political enemies over alleged mishandling of classified documents, today’s order is an important step toward increased transparency and accountability for the president’s own conduct,” Chukwu said. “If the very actions he condemns in others mirror what he did before leaving office, the public has a right to know. Transparency delayed is accountability denied. The continued secrecy around this report serves only to protect those in power, not the public interest.”