# The Jack Smith report stays buried, American justice pays the price > Introduction: a document that may never see the light of day - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Essay - Published: 2026-07-04 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-rapport-jack-smith-reste-enterre-la-justice-americaine-en-paie-le-prix ## Introduction: a document that may never see the light of day ### A permanent judicial **block** since February 2026 Since **February 23, 2026**, **federal** **Judge** **Aileen Cannon**, appointed by **Donald Trump**, has maintained a **permanent injunction** preventing the **publication** of the second **volume** of former **special counsel** **Jack Smith's** **report**, the one devoted to the case of **classified documents** found at **Mar-a-Lago**. This ruling, which confirms and makes permanent a **block** already in place for several months, deprives the American public of a document that Smith himself described as damning **evidence** regarding the handling of **classified documents** by the former, and now sitting, **president**. ### A striking contrast with the already published first **volume** The first **volume** of the Smith **report**, devoted to attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential **election**, had been made public in January 2025, even before the end of Joe Biden's term, without triggering a judicial **block** comparable to the one the second volume now faces. This asymmetry between the two volumes raises legitimate questions about the consistency of the judicial reasoning that distinguishes these two documents, even though they stem from the same **inquiry** and were written by the same **special counsel**. *An entire document vanishing into a judicial blind spot like this should worry any citizen committed to **transparency**, regardless of their **political** camp.* ## The grounds cited by **Judge** **Cannon** ### An accusation of maneuvering around her dismissal order In her ruling, **Judge** **Cannon** described **Jack Smith's** preparation of the report as a **"troubling breach of the spirit of her dismissal order,"** arguing that the **special counsel** had attempted a **"bold gambit"** to circumvent her earlier decision to dismiss the **classified documents** case. **Cannon** had originally dismissed the entire case against **Trump** in the summer of 2024, citing procedural flaws in the special counsel's very appointment, a decision that had already drawn sharp criticism from many American constitutional scholars. ### A ruling built on contested procedural arguments Several legal experts cited by American outlets believe Judge Cannon's reasoning rests on a broad and questionable interpretation of her own authority, given that the report is an internal **Department of Justice** document rather than an active piece of court procedure. This **legal** controversy feeds a broader debate over the real independence of certain federal judges appointed by **Trump** when it comes to ruling on questions that directly touch the personal interests of the sitting **president**. *Invoking a procedural breach to bury an entire report is an elegant way of avoiding the substance of the problem. The **legal** form here masks an eminently **political** choice.* ## The **legal** battle waged by **transparency** organizations ### **American Oversight** and the **Knight First Amendment Institute** on the front line The organizations **American Oversight** and the **Knight First Amendment Institute** tried to intervene in the proceedings to argue for the **publication** of the report, citing the clear public interest in knowing the full conclusions of the **inquiry** into the classified documents. Judge Cannon, however, refused to grant these organizations permission to formally intervene in the case, a procedural decision that considerably narrows the avenues available to force the **publication** of the document. ### An appeal pending before the **Eleventh Circuit** Court of Appeals Faced with this refusal, the two organizations took their case to the **Eleventh Circuit** Court of Appeals, where it remains pending, backed by a brief filed by the **Yale Law School MFIA** clinic on March 13, 2026, in favor of publication. The outcome of this appeal remains uncertain, but it currently represents the only concrete judicial avenue capable of overturning the block imposed by Judge Cannon and eventually allowing the second volume of the Smith report to be published. *Watching civic organizations fight in court for a document that should fall under basic **transparency** reveals a system that sometimes protects **power** more than it protects the public.* ## What **Jack Smith** himself is publicly denouncing ### A **Department of Justice** called '**corrupt**' In a filmed **interview** obtained by the **New York Times** and published on May 6, 2026, Jack Smith described the current **Department of Justice** as **"corrupt**" and **"tainted"** by **Trump** loyalists, a rare and direct statement from a former senior **federal** official. These remarks, made after he left the department, illustrate the scale of the rift between the traditional judicial establishment and the current administration, a tension that extends well beyond the report blocked by Judge Cannon. ### A firm defense of the integrity of his original **inquiry** Smith maintained, in that same **interview**, that his investigation rested on **solid, corroborated evidence**, firmly rejecting the accusations of **political** bias that the Trump administration and its allies have continued to level against him since the case was closed. This public defense of his work, while understandable coming from a prosecutor whose professional reputation is being directly attacked, obviously does not replace the transparency that the full publication of the report itself could have offered. *That a former **federal** prosecutor has to publicly defend himself against alleged corruption, rather than letting his report speak for itself, says a great deal about the current state of American institutional **trust**.* ## What the already published first volume revealed ### Damning conclusions on the attempts to overturn the **election** The first volume, made public in January 2025, concluded that the investigation had gathered **"evidence** beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump had illegally tried to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential **election**, according to the published report's own findings. This conclusion, though it never led to a conviction after the charges were dropped following the 2024 election, remains a landmark historical document for anyone studying the events surrounding the electoral dispute of that period. ### Evidence deemed 'powerful' on the classified documents The report also referred to **"powerful evidence"** of unlawful retention of classified documents, a central element of the second volume whose publication remains blocked today by Judge Cannon despite the documented existence of these preliminary findings. This difference in treatment between the two volumes, one published and the other blocked indefinitely, illustrates just how much the fate of a document of public interest can depend on the composition and convictions of the court hearing the case. *Knowing that such a damning volume exists, without ever being able to read it in full, is a democratic frustration that goes well beyond Donald Trump's personal fate.* ## The impact on **trust** in judicial **institutions** ### A troubling precedent for **judicial independence** This prolonged block, ordered by a judge appointed by the very person targeted by the investigation, fuels legitimate concerns about the real independence of the American **federal** judicial **power** when the interests of a sitting **president** are directly at stake in a proceeding. These concerns are not confined to the usual partisan circles: several politically unaffiliated legal scholars have publicly voiced their discomfort with how this case has been handled, from the initial dismissal to the current block on the second volume. ### An issue that reaches far beyond the Trump case alone Beyond Donald Trump's personal fate, this case raises a lasting institutional question: to what extent can a document produced by a legitimate **federal** investigation be permanently withheld from the public by a single, barely contestable **judicial decision**. This question will likely outlast Trump's current term, since it directly touches on the accountability mechanisms available to oversee the exercise of executive power by future American presidents, regardless of their political affiliation. *This is no longer just the Trump case. It's the question of whether a future president will always be able to count on a compliant judge to bury an inconvenient report. That should alarm everyone.* ## The possible next steps in this legal battle ### A ruling awaited from the **Eleventh Circuit** Court of Appeals The next decisive step remains the ruling from the **Eleventh Circuit** Court of Appeals on the intervention request filed by **American Oversight** and the **Knight First Amendment Institute**, a decision whose precise timeline remains uncertain as of now. If the Court of Appeals agrees to hear the appeal and overturns Judge Cannon's ruling, the second volume of the Smith report could eventually be made public, although such a judicial process could still take several months before reaching a final conclusion. ### A firm Department of Justice stance against any publication The current Department of Justice has also stated that it would not publish the report even if the judicial block were lifted, describing the document as worthless and stating, according to its own officials, that it does not deserve to be released to the public. This position, layered on top of the existing judicial block, illustrates a double barrier, both judicial and administrative, that makes eventual publication of the Smith report even less likely in the near future. *Two barriers are better than one, this administration seems to think. But stacking obstacles to transparency only reinforces suspicion rather than dispelling it.* ## Comparisons with other blocked **federal** investigative reports in history ### Rare precedents of a total judicial block Recent American judicial history offers very few precedents comparable to such a total judicial block on a federal special counsel report, with most investigative reports having historically ended up being made public, even in partially redacted form to protect certain sensitive information. This historical rarity makes the Smith report case all the more significant, since it potentially represents the first modern example of a federal investigative document being completely withheld from the public through a final **judicial decision** rather than through simple administrative delay. ### What this means for future special investigations This precedent could influence how future special counsels structure their investigative reports, now knowing that a federal judge can, under certain circumstances, permanently prevent the publication of findings even after they have been completed and documented by a legitimate federal investigation. This prospect worries several legal scholars, who fear that such a precedent could permanently weaken the American public's ability to obtain full accounts of federal investigations involving powerful political figures in the future. *If this precedent holds, every future special counsel will know that a well-placed judge can bury their work. That is a dangerous lesson to let take root in the American judicial system.* ## Conclusion: transparency sacrificed on the altar of power ### A document that may remain forever incomplete for history The fate of the second volume of the Jack Smith report starkly illustrates the fragility of democratic transparency mechanisms when they run up against the political will of an executive power determined to protect its own interests by every legal means available. This situation, though perhaps not yet permanently settled while the appeal remains pending before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, sends a troubling signal about the current state of the balance of power in the United States in this year 2026. ### A civic vigilance that must remain constant Faced with this prolonged block, the vigilance of transparency organizations, journalists and American citizens remains essential to maintaining the pressure needed for the possible future publication of this document of exceptional public interest. While awaiting a ruling from the Court of Appeals, this case forcefully reminds us that democratic transparency is never automatically preserved, but demands constant defense against those who would rather see it quietly disappear. *A buried report does not really die. It waits for its moment, a permanent reminder that transparency, once sacrificed, must always be won back rather than simply hoped for.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [Politico — Judge Cannon permanently blocks release of Jack Smith's classified documents report — February 23, 2026](https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/23/judge-cannon-jack-smith-classifed-docs-report-00792748) - [ABC News — Judge permanently blocks release of final report on Trump classified documents](https://abcnews.com/US/judge-permanently-blocks-release-final-report-trump-classified/story?id=130412078) ### Secondary sources - [Axios — Judge Aileen Cannon blocks Jack Smith's classified documents report](https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/judge-aileen-cannon-jack-smith-classified-documents-blocked) - [American Oversight — Organization condemns Judge Cannon's order permanently blocking release of Volume II of the Jack Smith report](https://americanoversight.org/american-oversight-condemns-judge-cannons-order-permanently-blocking-release-of-volume-ii-of-jack-smith-report/) - [Yale Law School — MFIA clinic urges Eleventh Circuit to unseal special counsel Jack Smith's report — March 13, 2026](https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/clinic-urges-11th-circuit-unseal-special-counsel-jack-smiths-report) - [The New York Times — Jack Smith calls the Department of Justice corrupt in filmed interview — May 6, 2026](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/06/us/politics/jack-smith-justice-dept-trump.html) - [BBC News — Judge permanently blocks release of Trump classified documents report](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1kgzelxjywo) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-rapport-jack-smith-reste-enterre-la-justice-americaine-en-paie-le-prix