The injunction lasts until three days after the 11th Circuit rules on a pending request to block the release of the report over a separate matter involving Trump's co-defendants.

Summary

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon temporarily blocked the release of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Donald Trump’s criminal cases.

The injunction will last until three days after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on a related case involving Trump co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.

Nauta and De Oliveira argue that releasing the report could jeopardize their right to a fair trial.

Cannon, who previously ruled Smith’s appointment unconstitutional, issued the order to “preserve the status quo” pending appellate decisions.

  • Snot FlickermanEnglish
    74·
    2 days ago

    So she has no legal authority because she dismissed the case, which returned direction to the 11th circuit.

    Can anyone with legal education explain to me why we’re even giving deference to someone who has no authority over the case?

    It seems like letting this fly is just giving them more ammunition to lie and twist the system with impunity to where the rules simply don’t matter.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      53·
      2 days ago

      Because we don’t have a functioning justice system? Oligarchs run our country, corruption is the currency of power, and the public at large has been duped into thinking we are free.

      • Snot FlickermanEnglish
        18·
        2 days ago

        Yeah that’s not a legal opinion as to why this is being allowed. I understand that much already and I’m looking for actual details here. I know folks think such things don’t matter so much anymore, but I do.

        • djsoren19@yiffit.net
          18·
          2 days ago

          But it is the correct answer. There’s no reason for her to be given any deference on this. The 11th district court has the ability to overrule this judgement at literally any time, and I hope they will. The only reason this works is because rule of law in the U.S. is collapsing.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          14·
          2 days ago

          You will find no satisfactory answers. The oligarchy has abandoned the pretense of the rule of law. It’s a scary time to be alive.

          • Snot FlickermanEnglish
            9·
            2 days ago

            I know it won’t be satisfactory, but I’m still looking for someone who understands how these legal mechanisms are supposed to work to talk me through it. I simply don’t have the legal education to be making a more informed statement, and clearly neither does anyone else here.

            While it’s easy to shout “Oligarchy!” the details still fucking matter.

              • Snot FlickermanEnglish
                6·
                2 days ago

                Ok and I personally think that attitude is gonna help Republicans memory hole how things actually worked in the past by throwing up your hands and giving up instead of trying to find out details.

                But you do you man, I’m still gonna at least try to find out things, even if the only thing it helps is having one more person remember how systems were supposed to function and continues talking about it to others.

                • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
                  7·
                  2 days ago

                  I hear you, and I understand where you’re coming from. But there literally isn’t a legal argument for any of it. The SCOTUS has been corrupted and has invalidated their own credibility, and corrupt judges and politicians have been handing down legally indefensible rulings for years. Their justification is “fuck you. What are you gonna do about it?”

                  Legal systems must be consistent to be valid. Selective application of legal reasoning has exposed our courts to malfeasance. It is rotten at the core, and any justice handed down is unintended coincidence.

                • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
                  9·
                  2 days ago

                  The reason is that many people are not doing their jobs. Cut and dry end of story.

                  I both understand and empathize with your search for meaning here, but that is the meaning.

                  • Snot FlickermanEnglish
                    1·
                    2 days ago

                    I understand and empathize with the perspectives in reply to this as well, I just think its defeatist thinking at a moment when feelings of defeat are rather unhelpful to any cause trying to protect people, even if very valid to feel.

            • leadore@lemmy.world
              2·
              2 days ago

              Basically their goal is to delay the release until Jan. 20th (inauguration), when Trump’s DOJ will bury it for him. The legal system is chock full of ways to delay things, just ask for a ruling on something and BAM, automatic delay. So they filed a motion asking the release to be delayed until the federal appeals court in Atlanta makes a decision on what will happen to Trump’s two co-defendants:

              That court is considering whether to resurrect the classified documents case against Trump’s two co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. They argued in legal motions Monday and Tuesday that releasing Smith’s report could unfairly prejudice them if they are ever brought to trial. Trump tacked onto their request, arguing that releasing the report is not in the public interest and that the negative attention it would receive could impede his presidency.

              source

              • Snot FlickermanEnglish
                2·
                2 days ago

                Thanks so much, this is exactly the kind of information I was looking for. This still sucks but it at least makes more sense.