The Department of Justice just dropped a legal bombshell in a battle over transparency that’s got the Trump camp nodding in approval.
Law & Crime reported that on Friday, the DOJ moved to dismiss a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The New York Times, which is desperate to get its hands on the second volume of former special counsel Jack Smith’s final report on the Mar-a-Lago investigation into President Donald Trump.
The crux of this saga is simple: the DOJ claims it can’t release the report because of an injunction from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, and they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place with conflicting legal pressures.
Let’s rewind to January, when The New York Times, along with one of its reporters, filed this FOIA lawsuit, accusing the DOJ of dragging its feet on expedited processing as required by federal law. They’re not wrong to want answers, but patience isn’t exactly the name of the game in today’s media frenzy.
On January 21, Judge Cannon issued an injunction after an emergency motion from Trump’s valet, Waltine “Walt” Nauta, and Mar-a-Lago’s chief of maintenance, Carlos de Oliveira.
This order explicitly bars Attorney General Garland, the DOJ, and anyone working with them from releasing or sharing Volume II of Smith’s report—or even discussing its conclusions—outside the department. It’s a legal padlock, and the DOJ is arguing it has no key.
The Trump administration, unsurprisingly, is pushing hard to toss this lawsuit out the window, and they’ve even filed for summary judgment as a backup plan.
They’re not playing games here; they’re citing a 1980 Supreme Court case to argue that when a federal injunction is in place, agencies have zero wiggle room on FOIA releases. Sounds like a solid defense, unless you’re rooting for the press to win every round.
The New York Times, in their amended complaint from late April, fired back, claiming Judge Cannon didn’t even have the authority to issue that injunction.
“The injunction was made by a court that lacked jurisdiction,” they argue in their filing, insisting that after Cannon dismissed charges against Trump, only the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals could step in. It’s a bold claim, but jurisdiction battles are rarely a slam dunk.
Expanding on their point, The Times contends that the District Court had no standing under Article III of the Constitution to issue such an order since there was no active case or controversy before it. They’re saying Cannon overstepped, rendering her injunction null and void.
The DOJ, however, isn’t buying it, countering with a 15-page motion that essentially says, “Nice try, but we’re still bound by the injunction.” They argue, as stated in their filing, that even if a court sides with The Times on jurisdiction, forcing the release of Volume II would trap the DOJ between two opposing court orders—a legal catch-22 no one wants to navigate.
Adding to the mess, the DOJ points out that Cannon’s injunction remains active, with proceedings still pending before her to decide if it should stay in place.
They’re not just kicking the can down the road; they’re highlighting that the judge herself directed further review, including a joint status report after appellate proceedings wrap up.
Even though charges against Nauta and de Oliveira were eventually dismissed, the controversy isn’t dead yet.
Two organizations, American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute, have jumped into the fray, seeking to intervene before Judge Cannon in the Southern District of Florida to dissolve or rescind the injunction. It’s a crowded courtroom, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
The DOJ’s motion pulls no punches, stating that The Times “fails to state a plausible claim” under FOIA since the injunction blocks release. They’re not wrong to lean on the letter of the law here—sometimes, rules are rules, even if they frustrate the progressive push for total transparency.
But let’s not pretend this is just about paperwork; it’s a tug-of-war between government accountability and protecting sensitive investigations.
The Times might cry foul over jurisdiction, but the DOJ’s point about conflicting orders isn’t just legal jargon—it’s a real dilemma. Who wants to be the one defying a federal judge, anyway?