What specific charges were included in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s classified‑documents indictment and what is the current appellate status?

1. What the indictment actually alleged: the core statutory themes

The indictment returned in June 2023 alleged a multi‑count federal case focused on unlawful retention and concealment of classified national defense information and on obstructive steps taken to prevent the government from recovering those materials; prosecutors characterized the charging bundle as 37 felony counts that included willful retention of national security material, obstruction of justice and conspiracy‑type allegations tied to the removal, storage and concealment of classified documents at Mar‑a‑Lago ^{[1] [4]}. Reporting and public statements from Smith’s office framed the case as a classic national‑security storage/retention prosecution complicated by overt acts to impede retrieval — language repeatedly echoed in subsequent congressional testimony and summaries of the charging instrument ^{[4] [5]}.

2. How the charges fit known DOJ practice and Smith’s framing

Smith’s team presented the factual theory as a willful retention of highly sensitive materials plus a separate obstruction scheme — an approach that mirrors longstanding Justice Department practice of charging both underlying records offenses and obstruction where there are affirmative acts to conceal or deny access to records ^{[3] [4]}. Smith has defended those choices publicly and in deposition, asserting his office found “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” on both the documents and the obstruction components of the case, while the public indictment structure mirrored what prosecutors historically bring when classified materials and post‑custodial concealment are at issue ^{[4] [6]}.

3. The dismissal and its reasoning: appointments clause decision by Judge Cannon

On July 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified‑documents indictment, concluding that Smith’s appointment as special counsel violated the Appointments Clause and that the indictment therefore had to be dismissed — an opinion Cannon wrote was confined to that Florida proceeding but nonetheless disposed of the charges in that district ^{[1] [7]}. That ruling marked one of several judicial interventions into Smith’s separate prosecutions and set up an immediate appellate pathway because the Justice Department and Smith’s office treated the dismissal as a dispositive legal error requiring reversal ^{[7] [2]}.

4. The appellate posture: notice, appeal and the bid to reinstate the case

Within weeks of Cannon’s order, Smith filed notice and signaled a formal appeal to the 11th Circuit, asking appellate judges to reinstate the indictment and to reject Cannon’s appointments‑clause analysis; the appeal was publicly filed and Smith’s counsel argued the dismissal was at odds with both longstanding DOJ practice and the constitutional framework governing special‑counsel appointments ^{[2] [3]}. Media reports and court filings from August 2024 show Smith lodged appeal papers and urged the Atlanta‑based court to reverse Cannon, while observers noted the 11th Circuit’s conservative bent could shape the timing and outcome of review ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Where the case stands now and limits of available reporting

As of the record in these sources, the classified‑documents indictment had been dismissed in the Florida district court and Smith had appealed to the 11th Circuit seeking reinstatement, with the formal appellate briefing and argument schedule still to play out and no final reversal recorded in the cited coverage ^{[2] [3] [7]}. Public reporting and Smith’s testimony make clear the government’s position is to press the appeal vigorously, but the cited sources do not include a final appellate decision or mandate restoring the indictment, so any claim about the ultimate appellate outcome would go beyond the available reporting ^{[2] [3]}.