11th Circuit leans into Trump's preferred scheduling for oral arguments as First Amendment groups seek to reverse Judge Cannon over Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago report

A federal court of appeals has again reset timelines for groups trying to reverse the burial of former special counsel Jack Smith's report on President Donald Trump and the Mar-a-Lago investigation.

In late October, the Knight First Amendment Institute and transparency-focused nonprofit American Oversight "respectfully urge[d]" the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to keep the schedule apace in their bid to undo the work of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who ordered the Department of Justice to keep Volume II of Smith's report forever under wraps.

While the groups did not specify a preferred date for the forthcoming hearing, their joint scheduling motion asked the appellate court "to schedule oral argument at the first available sitting."

That time is apparently the second week of January.

The groups' request comes on the heels of the same appellate court acceding to a request from Trump and his former co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira for more time to prepare — and complaining of scheduling conflicts — after oral arguments were originally scheduled to be held on Nov. 2, the day before Election Day.

That resetting of the court's clock occurred in early October. Later that month, the groups asked the court to speed things up.

"More than two weeks later, no date has been set," the joint motion reads. "[B]ecause the rights of access at stake depend on timely adjudication—an urgency this Court recognized in granting the Knight Institute's motion to expedite briefing and oral argument—and because the grounds Defendants–Appellees offered for a continuance have fallen away or will soon expire."

The justifications for the granted continuance largely had to do with events that are now over and done with, the groups said.

"The personal travel of Mr. De Oliveira's counsel ends November 2. Counsel for President Trump sought time to confer with her client after the November 3 elections, which will have taken place well before any available sitting," the filing added. "And the ground first raised in reply—the need to respond to a motion to intervene filed in the district court by current and former FBI agents—no longer stands in the way."

The former Mar-a-Lago defendants had emphasized there was a pending deadline on Cannon's docket, and fired FBI agents had asked her to clarify her injunction so they can testify in the DOJ's "grand conspiracy" probe without fear of negative consequences.

Cannon has not yet ruled on the FBI agents' request, but the "briefing is now complete," American Oversight and the Knight Institute noted.

In a footnote, the joint scheduling motion also incorporated some feedback from attorneys for Trump, De Oliveira and the DOJ.

"The United States takes no position on the motion," the motion added. "President Trump and Mr. De Oliveira oppose the motion, but only to the extent it seeks to schedule oral argument for a sitting before January 2027, or on a date that conflicts with counsel's existing commitments. Counsel for Mr. Nauta did not respond within the time requested."

In the end, the appellate court leaned into that limited opposition, effectively setting oral arguments on the president's timeline — while formally ruling in favor of the nonprofit groups.

"Appellants' motion to request or set oral argument is granted," the terse scheduling order reads in full. "Oral argument will be scheduled for Tuesday, January 12, at 2:00 p.m. in Atlanta, Georgia."

Now, the groups will have another chance to undo the district court's efforts at keeping the report under judicial lock and key.

On Feb. 23, Cannon aimed to kibosh the process, permanently blocking the current DOJ and any subsequent administrations from releasing the second volume — but stopping short of destroying it.

In that order, the court enjoined the DOJ and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi "or her successor(s)" from "releasing, sharing, or transmitting Volume II of the Final Report or any drafts of Volume II outside the Department of Justice" or "otherwise releasing, distributing, conveying, or sharing with anyone outside the Department of Justice any information or conclusions in Volume II or in drafts thereof."

The groups maintain that Cannon's "legally erroneous" rejection of the "public's right of access" should lead the 11th Circuit to vacate the injunction and "order Volume II placed on the public docket."

Matt Naham contributed to this report.