Smith, a special counsel, has been investigating President-elect Donald Trump.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s report on President-elect Donald Trump will be released to the public, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials said on Jan. 8.
Attorney General Merrick Garland intends to release part one of the report, which deals with Trump, “in furtherance of the public interest in informing a co-equal branch and the public regarding this significant matter,” officials said in a court filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Smith has already transmitted the report to Garland, officials said.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Tuesday had ordered the department not to release the report until the 11th Circuit reviewed a motion by Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, Trump’s co-defendants in a federal case.
While prosecutors dropped charges against Trump following his November 2024 election win, they are still pursuing Nauta, a former Trump aide, and De Oliveira, a manager at Trump’s resort in Florida.
Nauta and De Oliveira say Smith should be fired and that his report should not be released to the public, given he was found by Cannon to be unconstitutionally appointed.
DOJ lawyers said in the new filing that whether Smith was unconstitutionally appointed is irrelevant because the issue at hand is how Garland handles Smith’s report. They also argued that Nauta and De Oliveira have no interest in part one, and do not have standing to block the publication of that part.
“There is also no valid basis for this Court to pretermit the Attorney General’s discretion with respect to Volume One,” they wrote.
Officials said that while part two of the report will not be made available to the public, a redacted version will be available for certain lawmakers to view in camera as long as the lawmakers agree not to publicly release any of the report’s contents.
“This limited disclosure will further the public interest in keeping congressional leadership apprised of a significant matter within the Department while safeguarding defendants’ interests,” they wrote.
