The 11th U.S. Circuit unexpectedly advanced oral arguments to 2 p.m. on Nov. 2, 2026, in Atlanta to review Judge Aileen Cannon’s permanent injunction blocking release of Volume II of the Mar‑a‑Lago report. Cannon previously found special counsel Jack Smith unlawfully appointed and barred the DOJ and then‑AG Pam Bondi from disclosing the report’s contents, though she did not order its destruction. American Oversight and the Knight Institute urge the appeals court to vacate the injunction and place Volume II on the public docket; Trump, his co‑defendants and the Trump DOJ support Cannon’s ruling.
Appeals Court Accelerates Hearing Over Judge Cannon’s Block on Mar‑a‑Lago Report
Left: Then-special counsel Jack Smith speaks to the media about an indictment of then-former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at an office of the Department of Justice in Washington (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File). Center: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida). Right: Donald Trump speaks to members of the media before departing Manhattan criminal court, Monday, May 6, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson, Pool).
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unexpectedly moved up oral arguments over U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s permanent injunction barring public release of Volume II of the Mar‑a‑Lago report. The court set the hearing for 2 p.m. on Nov. 2, 2026, in Atlanta, after previously listing the matter tentatively for the week of Jan. 18, 2027.
How the Challenge Unfolded
Advocacy groups American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute sought to intervene in late December to prevent what they described as the "destruction" or permanent suppression of Volume II. The 11th Circuit added and removed United States v. Knight First Amendment Institute from its tentative calendar several times while weighing intervention requests and briefing.
What Judge Cannon Did
Judge Cannon, who was appointed by former President Trump, ruled earlier that special counsel Jack Smith had been unlawfully appointed, dismissed indictments tied to alleged willful retention of classified documents and related conspiracy charges, and invalidated Smith’s actions in the case. In February she issued a permanent injunction barring the Department of Justice and then‑Attorney General Pam Bondi ("or her successor(s)") from releasing, sharing, transmitting, or otherwise disclosing Volume II of the Final Report or any drafts or conclusions contained therein. She did not order the report destroyed.
Positions On Appeal
On appeal, Trump, his former co‑defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, and the Trump‑era DOJ have defended Cannon’s injunction. American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute argue Cannon legally erred by denying the public’s right of access and ask the 11th Circuit to vacate the injunction and place Volume II on the public docket.
Smith’s Position
Former special counsel Jack Smith has declined to discuss the substance of Volume II in court proceedings while the injunction stands. He has said his investigation developed evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that President Trump engaged in criminal conduct and that, "If asked whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that President was a Republican or a Democrat."
The appeals hearing on Nov. 2 will give counsel for each party an opportunity to argue whether Cannon’s injunction should be vacated and whether Volume II should be publicly docketed. A court memorandum instructed that counsel must present oral argument unless excused for good cause.
Help us improve.
