Special Counsel Jack Smith has officially resigned from the Justice Department, effective Friday, as detailed in a recent court filing. His resignation comes during an ongoing legal dispute regarding the potential release of his investigative report concerning former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the alleged mishandling of classified documents after Trump left office.
Smith submitted his final two-volume report to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday. While Garland has expressed his intention to eventually make the report public, he has indicated that the section related to the classified documents investigation will not be released at this time.
In recent weeks, Smith’s office has been in the process of winding down its operations. His resignation prior to Trump’s inauguration was anticipated. Alongside finalizing the report, Smith’s team has transferred an ongoing appeal regarding the special counsel’s powers to other attorneys within the Justice Department. Additionally, they have dismissed two federal criminal cases against Trump due to his return to the presidency.
Garland has communicated to congressional committee leaders his plan to provide them with confidential access to the volume of Smith’s report concerning the classified documents case. This weekend and the following week are critical for Garland as he navigates the balance between transparency and legal constraints.
Currently, the Justice Department is engaged in a court battle with Trump and his former co-defendants over the public release of Smith’s report. The urgency of the situation is heightened by the impending January 20 inauguration. Trump is expected to appoint members of his defense team—who have argued against the report’s publication—to significant positions within the Justice Department.
On Friday, an appeals court denied a request from Trump and his allies to keep the report confidential. The Justice Department has since appealed a temporary hold placed on the report’s release by Judge Aileen Cannon. Meanwhile, Trump’s former co-defendants are seeking an extension of that hold, which is set to expire on Sunday evening.
As it stands, the Justice Department may be able to release the first volume of Smith’s report to the public as early as Sunday or Monday. However, Judge Cannon has requested additional information from the Justice Department by Sunday morning regarding the contents of Volume 1 and its relevance to the classified documents case.
Smith was appointed by Garland in November 2022 to oversee the investigations into the classified documents and election subversion cases, following Trump’s announcement of his reelection campaign. A seasoned federal prosecutor, Smith previously served as a war crimes prosecutor at the Hague.
In 2023, Smith brought charges against Trump in both investigations, but both cases faced legal challenges. With voters opting to return Trump to the White House, he was dismissed from the prosecutions.
One significant outcome of Smith’s investigations is the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity in the election subversion case, which established a high threshold for prosecuting a former president for actions taken while in office.
Trump and his allies in Congress have publicly discussed plans to investigate the special counsel’s probes. The report represents Smith’s final assessment of his findings and the legal rationale behind them. Despite the current court dispute, there are alternative pathways for the report to become public. Congress could take measures to obtain the report or its contents, and Freedom of Information Act requests could also lead to the disclosure of details.
Trump’s former co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira, argue that the report should not be shared with Congress or the public, claiming it could prejudice their case if the prosecution against them—previously dismissed by Judge Cannon on the grounds of Smith’s alleged unconstitutional appointment—is revived by an appeals court.
In response, the Justice Department’s recent filing countered this argument by highlighting Garland’s decision not to publicly release the report and noting that lawmakers permitted to view it would be prohibited from disclosing its details.
Trump and his allies further contend that Cannon’s ruling disqualifying Smith undermined his authority to produce the report and obstructs Garland from releasing it. As the situation unfolds, the implications of Smith’s investigations and the potential for the report’s release remain at the forefront of legal and political discussions.
