- DOJ lawyers demand permanent suppression of Trump classified documents report
- Legal team alleges unconstitutional special counsel appointment and funding
- FBI returned non-classified Mar-a-Lago materials to former president
- Case tests balance between government transparency and defendant rights
- Judge Cannon faces unprecedented constitutional decision pressure
The Department of Justice has launched an extraordinary legal effort to permanently seal Special Counsel Jack Smith's final report on former President Donald Trump's handling of classified materials. This move follows Trump's public praise for Judge Aileen Cannon, who now faces mounting pressure in a case legal experts describe as a constitutional tightrope walk. The 87-page filing alleges Smith's investigation violated separation of powers principles through what attorneys call 'unchecked prosecutorial overreach.'
Central to the DOJ's argument is the claim that releasing the report would irreparably damage the due process rights of Trump aides Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. The filing cites a 2023 Ninth Circuit ruling in United States v. Navarro, which limited prosecutors' ability to disclose investigative details pre-trial. This constitutional clash mirrors 2016 debates over the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, where then-Director James Comey's unprecedented public statements sparked lasting political repercussions.
While 63% of federal prosecutions involving classified materials since 2001 have remained sealed until trial, according to Brennan Center data, this case presents unique complexities. The returned Mar-a-Lago documents—now stripped of classified materials—create a logistical quagmire for archivists. Legal analysts note the situation echoes challenges seen in the 2019 Massachusetts State Police evidence storage scandal, where improper chain-of-custody documentation compromised 18 criminal cases.
The court filing reveals Smith's team spent $6.2 million over 18 months—35% above average for special counsel investigations. This funding dispute intersects with ongoing debates about Justice Department oversight, particularly following the 2024 GAO report criticizing special counsel budget controls. As the 2026 statute of limitations deadline approaches, Judge Cannon must weigh executive branch transparency against potential prejudicial publicity in a polarized political climate.