Unanimous Ruling By Court Of Appeals Halts Special Master In Mar-a-Lago Documents Case, Reaffirming Principle That No One Is Above The Law
Last night, in a unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, ruled against former President Donald Trump and halted the special master’s review of the documents seized from Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago.
“In considering these arguments,” the Appeals Court panel wrote, “we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents. We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed.”
In September, federal District Court Judge Aileen Cannon ordered the appointment of a special master to review the more than 11,000 documents that were removed from Mar-a-Lago under a court-approved search warrant in order to retrieve classified, secret, and top secret documents improperly taken by Trump.
“In making its decision, the Court strongly reaffirmed one of our nation’s foundational principles – no one, not even a former President, is above the law,” Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer said. “The 11th Circuit decision makes clear that there was never any merit to the Trump lawsuit, notwithstanding the favorable decision for Trump provided by Judge Cannon.”
Following the Mar-a-Lago search in August, Attorney General Merrick Garland said: “Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy. Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor.”
The Appeals Court’s opinion outlined the arguments made by the Trump legal team with regard to the legal test applicable to their special master request. “All these arguments are a sideshow,” the Court wrote with regard to Trump’s contentions relating to one part of the test.
“It is indeed extraordinary,” the Court wrote, “for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president—but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation. […] To create a special exception here would defy our Nation’s foundational principle that our law applies ‘to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.’”
The Court opinion continues: “The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations. Accordingly, we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is required.”
A group of former federal prosecutors and state and federal government officials who served in Republican Administrations, including former top Justice Department officials who served as Assistant, Deputy, and Acting Attorneys General, and U.S. Attorneys, filed amicus briefs in the three stages of this case, at the district court and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, supporting the Justice Department. The briefs called former President Trump’s request for a special master “unprecedented” and “manifestly frivolous.”
The amicus briefs were prepared by co-counsels, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Amb. Norman Eisen (ret.); and Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer.
The opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is here.
The three amicus briefs filed in the case and additional resources are here.
Mar-a-Lago Model Prosecution Memo: A Strong Basis Exists For DOJ To Indict Former President Trump For Crimes Dealing With Mar-a-Lago Documents Case, published in Just Security, is here.
# # #
