Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump filed a plea with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, seeking to block the release of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Trump’s alleged efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election.
Attorney General Merrick Garland had informed the court of his intention to release part of Smith’s report, prompting Trump’s legal team to submit a 13-page amicus brief, characterizing the investigation as a “political hit job.”
“Smith was unconstitutionally appointed and funded,” Trump’s attorneys argued in the brief. “Moreover, the Election Case unconstitutionally relied on immune Presidential acts.”
The attorneys framed the report as an attack on Trump’s legitimacy, citing his 2024 election victory as evidence of public rejection of the charges. “Fortunately, the American people roundly rejected Smith’s prosecution of President Trump,” the brief stated. “On November 5, 2024, they resoundingly elected President Trump to be the 47th President of the United States.”
Trump’s legal team accused Garland and Smith of irony in their effort to release the report. “The report is nothing less than another attempted political hit job whose sole purpose is to disrupt the Presidential transition and undermine President Trump’s exercise of executive power,” the brief claimed.
The case centers on allegations that Trump and his allies sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election, culminating in charges brought by Smith’s investigation. While Garland intends to release part of the report, Trump’s attorneys contend that such an action would be unconstitutional and politically motivated.
This latest legal battle underscores the high-stakes tension surrounding Trump’s return to the presidency and the lingering fallout from the 2020 election. Trump’s team maintains that the investigation and subsequent report are part of a broader effort to delegitimize his political resurgence, while critics argue the report is essential to ensuring accountability and transparency.
As the appeals court weighs the arguments, the outcome could set a precedent for the release of high-profile investigations and the limits of executive power during transitions.