Trump Celebrates Legal Win in Mar-a-Lago Case, But Legal Battle Continues

Former President Donald Trump is celebrating a legal win after successfully opposing two organizations’ attempts to prevent Judge Aileen Cannon from permanently sealing special counsel Jack Smith’s report on the classified documents case.

On Wednesday, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a petition from American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. These groups had sought a writ of mandamus to overturn Judge Cannon’s decision made in late February, which prohibited the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, or her successors, from releasing or sharing Volume II of the Final Report or any drafts outside the Department of Justice.

Though the appellate panel, which included two judges appointed by Trump and one by Barack Obama, determined that Cannon’s order did not make the petition irrelevant, they concluded that the groups did not demonstrate a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ of mandamus. The writ was sought to rectify what they claimed was an overreach of power or misuse of discretion.

This outcome contrasts sharply with previous assertions that Cannon, appointed by Trump, had made a “legally erroneous” decision when she dismissed the case in July 2024. She had concluded, after thorough examination, that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful.

“The petitioners have not fulfilled the necessary burden, as they have not shown that they lack other adequate means to obtain the relief they seek,” stated U.S. Circuit Judges Andrew Brasher, Robert Luck, and Adalberto Jordan in their ruling.

Jordan concurred but clarified that he denied mandamus “on the understanding” that Cannon “will not enter any order directing, permitting, or allowing the destruction of Volume II while the petitioners’ appeal is pending[.]”

The petitioners have been involved in the dismissed Espionage Act and obstruction cases against Trump, valet Waltine Nauta, and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira for a year now, with attempts to intervene to lift an injunction and bring Volume II to light. Following Cannon’s protracted and “undue delay” for several months in ruling on the motions to intervene, there was a flat denial — and also a golden opportunity for at least two of the former defendants to demand the “destruction” of Volume II and its relegation to the “dustbin of history.”

After the “destruction” threat led to the mandamus petition, Trump attorney Kendra Wharton downplayed Nauta and de Oliveira’s request as a bid for the “constitutional expungement” of Volume II, slamming the “liberal organizations” and “purported” nonpartisan nonprofits for seeking disclosure of Smith’s “unlawfully prepared” report based on an “unfounded sense of urgency.”

Ultimately, Cannon did not go as far as ordering the destruction of Volume II, meaning that the petitioners’ worst-case scenario didn’t come to pass and undercut the need for “extraordinary” relief, as a separate appeal of Cannon’s initial denial of the intervention is on track for oral arguments in June.

To that end, Knight Institute senior counsel Scott Wilkens told Law&Crime that the decision “doesn’t affect our appeal of Judge Cannon’s decision to withhold the report from the public.”

“The American people have a right to this extraordinarily significant report, and the First Amendment and common law require its release. We’re hopeful that the court will overrule Judge Cannon and order the release of the Special Counsel’s report,” Wilkens said.

Wharton, on the other hand, said the 11th Circuit “properly dismissed the frivolous claims of liberal activist groups trying to cling to Democrat failed lawfare.”

“Judge Cannon’s recent ruling protects the rights of President Trump and others wrongfully targeted by Jack Smith’s unlawful and unconstitutional investigation,” Trump’s attorney told Law&Crime.

With oral arguments on the horizon, there’s more evidence to suggest this fight is far from over.

America First Legal Foundation, a law firm co-founded by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, is now weighing in with an amicus brief that claimed there’s an independent bar to releasing Smith’s report outside the DOJ: the Privacy Act.

“[B]ecause Volume II documents an unauthorized and terminated investigation, its continued retention perpetuates unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. Disclosure is therefore a legally inappropriate outcome,” the filing said, calling for the “[d]isposal of all copies.”

The brief, filed by former Clarence Thomas clerk Crystal Clanton, said that it is the “only remedy that cures the violations and prevents further harm.”