Massive Win: Judge SHUTS Down DOJ

Hand holding gavel in courtroom setting.

Judge Aileen Cannon delivers a decisive victory for President Trump by permanently blocking the release of Jack Smith’s tainted classified documents report, shielding due process from a weaponized DOJ.

Story Highlights

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issues permanent injunction on February 23, 2026, halting DOJ release of Volume II of Jack Smith’s report on Mar-a-Lago documents.
Ruling protects presumption of innocence after case dismissal, citing Smith’s unlawful appointment and risks to protected materials.
Trump, co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, and AG Pam Bondi’s DOJ all opposed release, unlike prior special counsel reports.
Decision sets precedent against publicizing dismissed case details, bolstering defenses against politicized prosecutions.
Transparency groups denied intervention; appeal pending in 11th Circuit.

Cannon’s Ruling Safeguards Due Process

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, issued a 15-page permanent order on February 23, 2026, blocking the Justice Department from releasing Volume II of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report. The report covers allegations of classified document mishandling at Mar-a-Lago. Cannon granted requests from President Trump, Walt Nauta, and Carlos de Oliveira. She emphasized the presumption of innocence following the case’s dismissal. This upholds core constitutional protections long eroded by overreaching federal probes.

Primary Social Media URL: Insert below if relevant

Smith’s appointment as special counsel in November 2022 faced dismissal in July 2024 by Cannon, who ruled it unlawful. Trump’s 2024 re-election ended the prosecution under DOJ policy against charging sitting presidents. Volume I on election interference released in January 2025, but Volume II remains withheld. Current AG Pam Bondi deems it privileged and internal, aligning with separation of powers. All parties agree: no public airing of a dead case’s unproven claims.

Case Origins and Key Timeline

The FBI recovered over 100 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago after 2021, alleging willful retention and obstruction by Trump, Nauta, and de Oliveira. Indictments came in June 2023. Cannon dismissed charges in July 2024 on appointment grounds, rejecting Smith’s speedy trial push. Smith appealed but resigned post-election. Trump requested the permanent block in January 2026. Cannon’s order overrides a scheduled February 24 release, sealing voluminous discovery under protective orders.

Trump lawyer Kendra Wharton praised Cannon’s “courage,” calling the ruling exemplary due process worthy of law school study. DOJ highlighted Smith’s probe “illegality and impropriety.” Smith offered no comment. Intervenors like American Oversight and Knight First Amendment Institute sought transparency but failed; they appeal to the 11th Circuit.

Stakeholders United Against Release

President Trump sought the block to prevent “unproven accusations” from a dismissed case, proclaiming his innocence. Co-defendants Nauta and de Oliveira joined the motion for privacy and protection. Bondi’s DOJ opposes disclosure, viewing Smith’s work as illegitimate. Cannon, overseeing the Southern District of Florida remnants, prioritizes fairness over FOIA demands from news outlets. This consensus contrasts sharp left-driven transparency pushes in past administrations.

Power dynamics favor restraint: Cannon’s rulings consistently defend against perceived weaponization. Post-election DOJ realignment under Trump isolates Smith’s legacy. Transparency advocates face uphill battles, highlighting tensions between public interest and judicial precedent in politically charged cases.

Impacts and Precedent for Future Probes

Short-term, the ruling shields the Trump administration from immediate scrutiny over dismissed allegations. Long-term, it limits special counsel reports in contested, dismissed indictments—unlike Mueller’s full release after no charges. This deters future partisan fishing expeditions, reinforcing innocence until proven guilty. Politically, it bolsters narratives of a “weaponized” DOJ under prior leadership.

Cannon noted no precedent exists for releasing such post-dismissal materials, warning of “manifest injustice.” Socially, it fuels debates on presumption of innocence amid eroded trust in federal institutions. Legally, it challenges FOIA in criminal case remnants, impacting federal probe transparency. Public gains no insight into classified handling but avoids trial-by-media on uncharged claims. An 11th Circuit appeal introduces uncertainty.