A federal appeals court has refused to stop the release of audio recordings and transcripts from Joe Biden's interviews with the ghostwriter of his memoirs, dealing a blow to the former president's effort to keep the material private.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a 2-1 decision late Monday rejecting Biden's request for an injunction. The panel suspended its ruling until August 3 to give Biden time to consider filing another appeal.
The majority found that a "substantial" public interest in disclosing the interviews outweighed Biden's privacy concerns. The court noted that redactions to the recordings would help shield personal information while still allowing the material to be released.
"We conclude that any remaining incursion on personal privacy from disclosure of the now-redacted materials likely does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure," the judges wrote.
Mark Zwonitzer, who collaborated with Biden on two memoirs, conducted interviews with the former president at his home during 2016 and 2017. Biden's legal team argued the conversations were candid and personal in nature, intended to remain confidential.
The recordings entered the public arena after special counsel Robert Hur's investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents from his time as a senator and vice president. Hur declined to file charges. Congressional Republicans subsequently demanded access to the material, prompting Hur's office to seek its release.
Biden then sued to block the Justice Department, now under President Donald Trump's control, from turning over the recordings to Congress and the Heritage Foundation, a conservative advocacy group. The Justice Department had previously contended the materials were exempt from disclosure under public records law.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, ruled in June that public interest trumped Biden's privacy rights. Biden appealed that decision.
The three-judge panel included D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, nominated by President Barack Obama, and Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by Biden, dissented from the majority.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "The court's decision reflects a shift in how judges now weigh executive privacy claims against public demands for transparency, especially when a president's own Justice Department argues for disclosure."
Comments