U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump’s request to seize documents

Oct 13 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the records of former President Donald Trump’s request for an independent arbitrator to review classified documents.

The justices denied Trump’s October in a brief order. An Aug. 4 emergency petition to quash a lower court ruling that prevented an arbitrator from reviewing more than 100 documents marked as confidential of roughly 11,000 documents seized Aug. 8 at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach. one of the records. 8.

Two days after the Justice Department urged them to reject Trump’s request and put classified documents in the hands of an arbitrator known as a special master, none of the nine justices publicly challenged the decision.

Sign up now for free unlimited access to Reuters.com

The court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, includes three Trump-appointed justices who leave office in January 2021.

Federal officials have obtained a court-approved search warrant to search Trump’s residence in the Justice Department’s criminal investigation after suspecting he did not return all classified documents after his presidency ended.

Investigators searched for evidence of potential crimes related to the illegal retention of defense information and obstruction of federal investigations. Trump has denied wrongdoing and said the investigation was politically motivated.

Trump appears in court in August. 22 to limit the Justice Department’s access to these documents in criminal investigations.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, U.S., September 17, 2022.REUTERS/Galen Morse/File photo

U.S. District Judge Erin Cannon last month agreed with Trump’s request to temporarily block the government’s use of seized material in the investigation until the special director determines whether anyone can be considered an individual or subject to attorney-client confidentiality or administrative The constraints of privilege — a legal principle that protects some White House communications from disclosure — are therefore not subject to investigators.

Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, named retired U.S. Judge Raymond Derie as a special master. Cannon later rejected the Justice Department’s order to partially discharge her, which only covered documents marked classified, classified or top secret, which the administration believes hinders efforts to mitigate national security risks because of the potential for unauthorized disclosure.

Cannon said she could not accept that the documents were indeed classified without being reviewed by Deeley.

The Justice Department appealed to the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which then stayed Cannon’s decision related to the classified documents, a move that prevented Dearie from reviewing it while allowing the government to resume its investigation. The 11th Circuit noted the importance of restricting access to classified information and ensuring that the department’s investigations are not compromised.

The 11th Circuit also rejected any suggestion that Trump had declassified documents — as the former president claimed — saying there was “no evidence” of such conduct and that the argument was “diverted because of declassification of official documents” It will not change its content or make it personal.”

Three statutes underpinning the search warrant used by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago make it a crime to mishandle government records, regardless of their classification status.

The department’s investigation is also trying to determine who accessed classified materials, whether they were compromised and whether any whereabouts are unknown.

Trump’s lawyers previously told the Supreme Court that Deerey should be able to review the records, and that the Justice Department “has tried to criminalize document management disputes and is now strongly opposed to providing a transparent process that desperately needs oversight.”

Sign up now for free unlimited access to Reuters.com

Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standard: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source link