Goodbye to the Special Master in the Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Case

The Department of Justice (DOJ) obtained numerous boxes of materials from Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago, pursuant to a validly issued search warrant based on a finding of “probably cause.” Many of the documents collected were marked “classified” and should have been turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration. 

Mr. Trump was not pleased. In response, he filed a new action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which he styled as a “Motion For Judicial Oversight And Additional Relief.” This case was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon—whom Trump had appointed.  Judge Cannon decided that the Justice Department should not have access to the materials for investigative purposes until a Special Master reviewed them and decided what the DOJ should properly have. 

The DOJ appealed the decision to the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The DOJ argued that the appointment of a Special Master was ludicrous and that Judge Cannon should not have entertained the case in the first place. Today, a three- judge panel (one appointed by Bush and two by Trump, for those who are keeping score), issued a scathing opinion in favor of the DOJ. The first paragraph of the decision says it all: 

“This appeal requires us to consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation. The answer is no.” 

This was not a difficult decision for the Court of Appeals to make. It all comes down to a fundamental rule in the Federal court system. Federal courts are called courts of limited jurisdiction. In other words, there are specific rules and classifications that apply before a federal court will even accept your case. If the case that you, as a plaintiff, want to file does not fit into those classifications, you are out of luck. 

There is one exception to that rule, however. If you can show that an extremely rare reason exists, the court may exercise “equitable” jurisdiction. As the Court of Appeals said here, “Only the narrowest of circumstances permit a district court to invoke equitable jurisdiction. Such decisions ‘must be exercised with caution and restraint,’ as equitable jurisdiction is appropriate only in ‘exceptional cases where equity demands intervention.’” 

The judicial test to see if it should exercise equitable jurisdiction has four components—and you need to satisfy all of them. The Court of Appeals found that Judge Cannon was incorrect on all four. Therefore, not only did the judge not have the authority to appoint a Special Master, but she lacked jurisdiction to hear the case at all. 

The result is that the entire case filed by Trump is being dismissed and the DOJ can continue with its investigation, using all of the materials obtained in the search warrant. 

It is, of course, possible that Trump’s attorneys will ask the Supreme Court to overturn this decision. A reversal is exceptionally unlikely.

Injunction Junction, What’s Your Function?

As part of the Congressional special committee’s examination of the facts relative to the January 6 attack on the Capitol, they have requested the National Archives to release a tranche of information related to Donald Trump’s potential involvement. As a surprise to nobody, Trump filed suit to stop the production of these materials. 

The term “injunction” is being used in so many contexts here that it might be helpful to outline the different kinds of injunctions that are involved. 

When Trump’s lawsuit asked for an injunction to prevent the National Archives from producing materials, it claimed that, although records are readily available, the Congressional committee simply should not be allowed to have them. Ever. The ultimate goal of the case is to permanently prevent the committee from receiving access to these documents. This is a permanent injunction. 

It takes a lot of time and legal proceedings for a permanent injunction to take effect. The Court must consider a variety of facts and also determine whether there is a legal basis that would allow an injunction to be issued. 

In this case, time is not a luxury that Trump has. According to the timetable for producing documents (which is outlined by statute), the National Archives are required to produce the first tranche of these documents by Friday of this week. 

Because the proceedings necessary to receive a permanent injunction will take so long, Trump asked for the process to stop in its tracks until all of the arguments can be presented. He did this by asking for a preliminary (or temporary) injunction. When confronted with a preliminary injunction request, the court considers a number of factors, including irreparable harm to the requesting party. 

Yesterday, the court denied Trump’s request for a preliminary injunction. The next step for Trump, then, is to appeal this decision, asking a higher court to reverse the denial of the preliminary injunction (which he did). However, there is one step that occurs before the appeal ever takes place. 

Trump was required to ask for a different injunction, one where the lower court, on its own, stops the process until the appellate court can weigh in. This is called an injunction pending an appeal or an administrative injunction. This is what is being argued today. 

If that injunction request is denied, Trump will immediately ask the appellate court to stop the proceedings while it considers whether the preliminary injunction was properly denied. 

Confused yet? Try this. 

Trump requests a permanent injunction (ongoing as part of the complete case)

Trump requests a temporary injunction concerning production of documents (denied)

Trump files an appeal (pending)

Trump requests an injunction pending appeal with the lower court (pending)

If that is denied, which is likely, Trump will ask the appellate court to reverse the denial of the temporary injunction. In other words, the appellate court will be asked to order the lower court to grant a preliminary injunction until the full case is heard. 

Considering the case law on the subject, it is likely that the committee will eventually be given access to some, if not all, of the National Archives records they have requested. This is especially true because the National Archives do not contain confidential (privileged) communications of a former president. 

The question, then, is how long Trump will be able to drag out the process. We will learn that shortly.