A Florida federal judge on Tuesday barred the release of a report on the criminal case against Donald Trump concerning his alleged retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, ruling it would jeopardize the rights of his co-defendants.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon denied the government’s request to share the second volume of former special counsel Jack Smith's report with Congress. The judge stated that such a release, before the criminal proceedings involving Trump’s personal aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira conclude, could undermine due process protections.

Judge: Release Risks Prejudicing Defendants

Judge Cannon emphasized the risks of public dissemination, despite the government’s proposed safeguards, citing "a very strong public interest in this criminal proceeding." She concluded that the likelihood of the report becoming public was significant and could unfairly prejudice the defendants.

"The department has offered no valid reason to engage in this gamble with the defendants' rights," Cannon wrote. "The bare wishes of one attorney general with ‘limited time’ in office to comply with a non-existent ‘historical practice’ of releasing special counsel reports in the pendency of criminal proceedings is not a valid reason."

The judge criticized the lack of enforceable restrictions on the dissemination of the report and rejected the government’s argument that it had a historical precedent for sharing such reports with Congress.

Trump Intervenes as Amicus

Although Trump was dismissed from the case after his reelection, Judge Cannon granted his alternative request to participate as an amicus to challenge the report’s release. His attorney, John Lauro, argued during a hearing Friday that making the report available to Congress, even under strict conditions, would equate to public dissemination.

“Any dissemination to Congress under these circumstances is the equivalent of public dissemination,” Lauro stated. He warned that releasing the report would cause "very grave" harm to Trump, both personally and in his capacity as president.

The Department of Justice’s Elizabeth Shapiro contended that Congress would not receive physical copies of the report. Instead, members could view it under strict conditions, including a ban on electronic devices, note-taking, and a confidentiality agreement. Shapiro argued that leaks were unlikely and noted a "historical practice" of sharing similar reports with lawmakers.

Trump Case History and Co-Defendant Proceedings

Trump, Nauta, and De Oliveira were indicted in 2023 for conspiring to retain classified documents after Trump left office and allegedly obstructing the investigation. Judge Cannon dismissed Trump’s charges in July 2024, ruling that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. The Eleventh Circuit is reviewing the dismissal regarding Nauta and De Oliveira.

Lauro hailed the decision as a victory for constitutional rights, criticizing what he described as a politically motivated DOJ under Merrick Garland and Jack Smith.

“Our long national nightmare of a politicized and weaponized Department of Justice is finally over,” Lauro said. “Judge Cannon’s decision protects and upholds the sanctity of our constitutional rights.”

Counsel and Representation

The DOJ is represented by Elizabeth J. Shapiro and Brian M. Boynton of its Civil Division. Trump is represented by John F. Lauro and Gregory M. Singer of Lauro & Singer. Nauta and De Oliveira have separate legal teams, with Stanley E. Woodward Jr. and Richard C. Klugh representing Nauta, and John S. Irving IV and Larry Donald Murrell Jr. representing De Oliveira.