A federal judge on Thursday sided with the Department of Justice, dismissing The New York Times” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, which sought the public disclosure of Volume II of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report on his Mar-a-Lago case against President Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Woods, a Barack Obama appointee sitting on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, explained that he would not second-guess U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s jurisdiction in issuing a permanent injunction and, therefore, the Times’ FOIA case was doomed.

“Because the Court declines to hold that Judge Cannon lacked jurisdiction to issue her injunction, the Court finds that the DOJ is not improperly withholding Volume II of the Special Counsel’s report,” wrote Woods. “The DOJ’s motion to dismiss in this action is therefore GRANTED.”

In July, the DOJ argued that the Times’ suit should fail precisely because Cannon’s injunction was still in place. The Times’ lawyers had claimed that the injunction was a legal “nullity” which Cannon had no jurisdiction to issue.

As Law&Crime has reported, when Cannon — the Trump-appointed judge who dismissed the president’s Mar-a-Lago classified documents prosecution and invalidated Smith’s appointment as special counsel — issued the injunction in January, Trump valet Waltine Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira still had an active appeal in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in their criminal cases.

A matter of days later, however, the DOJ, Nauta, and de Oliveira each agreed to dismiss the appeal, and charges were dropped. The 11th Circuit accordingly responded by jettisoning the case on Feb. 11.

In the aftermath, and while the Times’ FOIA lawsuit was ongoing, nonprofit groups filed motions to intervene in Cannon’s court in February, attempting to clear the way for the public disclosure of Volume II.

In July, the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight urged Cannon to rule on their requests by notifying her that it had been 90 days since their reply briefs hit the docket.

As Woods noted on Thursday — and despite the groups’ reminders — there has been no movement on Cannon’s front.

“The motions to intervene remain pending before Judge Cannon,” the judge said, adding that the Times did not “overcome the presumptive validity of Judge Cannon’s jurisdiction to issue the Permanent Injunction.”

Woods concluded that because the Knight Institute and American Oversight have sought to “modify[] or vacat[e]” the injunction and those efforts are still ongoing, amid Cannon’s inaction on the issue, he declined to “order the DOJ to take further action with respect to” the Times’ FOIA demand.

“The prospective intervenors in the Florida Criminal Case are currently representing the interests of those seeking disclosure of Volume II; the Court will not order the DOJ to do so as well,” the judge said.

Read the ruling in full here.