This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/us/politics/trump-supreme-court.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme Court Rejects Trump Request to Intervene in Documents Case Supreme Court Rejects Trump Request to Intervene in Documents Case
(about 5 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a request from former President Donald J. Trump to intervene in the litigation over documents seized from his Florida estate. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a request from former President Donald J. Trump to intervene in the litigation over documents seized from his Florida estate, a stinging rebuke that blocked his effort to get access to classified documents found there by the F.B.I.
The court’s order, which was a sentence long, was a stinging rebuke to Mr. Trump. There were no noted dissents, and the court gave no reasons, saying only: “The application to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Sept. 21, 2022, presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the court is denied.” The court’s single-sentence order noted no dissents, and the court gave no rationale, saying only that his application to lift a stay issued by a federal appeals court was denied.
Mr. Trump asked the court last week to step into the tangled case, saying that an appeals court had lacked jurisdiction to remove about 100 documents marked as classified from a review of the seized material. The Supreme Court’s action means that the special master in the case, and Mr. Trump’s legal team, will not have access to those documents. The Supreme Court’s order on Thursday — the latest in a string of cases in which it has dealt Mr. Trump a legal setback — means that the special master in the case, and Mr. Trump’s legal team, will not have access to those documents.
The court’s order landed during a hearing of a House committee investigating Mr. Trump’s conduct in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and not long before it voted to subpoena him.
Mr. Trump, who can seem engulfed in litigation, has had mixed success in the courts but has frequently been infuriated by what he sees as a lack of loyalty or deference to him by the Supreme Court, which has three justices appointed by him.
In January, for instance, the Supreme Court refused his request to block the release of White House records held by the National Archives concerning the Jan. 6 attack, effectively rejecting his claim of executive privilege. The court let stand an appeals court ruling that Mr. Trump’s desire to maintain the confidentiality of presidential communications was outweighed by the need for a full accounting of the attack.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas noted a dissent. It later emerged that his wife, Virginia Thomas, had sent a barrage of text messages to the Trump White House urging efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Mr. Trump’s emergency application in the new case was directed to Justice Thomas, the member of the court who oversees the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, which had ruled against the former president. Justice Thomas referred the application to the full Supreme Court, and there was no indication that he disagreed with the order rejecting Mr. Trump’s request.
In 2020, while Mr. Trump was still president, the Supreme Court ruled that he had no absolute right to block release of financial records sought by prosecutors in New York.
“No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. Justices Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
The court returned that case to the lower courts for further proceedings. After they again ruled against Mr. Trump, he asked the justices to hear a new appeal in 2021.
In a decisive defeat, the court refused to hear the case, clearing the way for the release of the records. There were no noted dissents.
During the House Jan. 6 hearing on Thursday, the committee presented evidence of Mr. Trump’s angry reaction to the court’s decision in December 2020 to reject a lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the election results in four battleground states that he had lost.
A Secret Service email from the day of that decision read: “Supreme Court denied his lawsuit. He is livid now.”
The committee played testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, describing Mr. Trump’s reaction to the decision in the election case. Mr. Trump, she said, was “raging about the decision and how it’s wrong, and why didn’t we make more calls, and, you know, just his typical anger outburst.”
In the newest case, Mr. Trump asked the court last week to step into the tangled dispute about the documents seized in Florida, saying that the appeals court had lacked jurisdiction to remove about 100 documents marked as classified from a review of those materials.
The decision on Thursday concerned a subset of the more than 11,000 files seized in August from his residence and private club in Florida, Mar-a-Lago — about 100 or documents with classified markings.
In a 29-page decision last month, the 11th Circuit stayed a ruling from a federal trial judge in Florida “to the extent it enjoins the government’s use of the classified documents and requires the government to submit the classified documents to the special master for review.”
That appeals court decision, which was unsigned, was joined by Judges Britt Grant and Andrew L. Brasher, appointed by Mr. Trump, and Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum, appointed by President Barack Obama.
The ruling was skeptical of Mr. Trump’s arguments. “We cannot discern why plaintiff” — Mr. Trump — “would have an individual interest in or need for any of the 100 documents with classification markings,” the panel wrote.
Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court challenge to that ruling was curious in two ways: It was filed almost two weeks after the appeals court acted, and it made what was, in the scheme of things, a modest request. Those factors suggested that Mr. Trump’s lawyers had struggled to find a way to appease a difficult client demanding to appeal at least some aspect of his case to the Supreme Court.
In their filing, Mr. Trump’s lawyers did not ask the Supreme Court to overturn a more important part of the appeals court’s ruling, which allowed the Justice Department to continue using the documents with classification markings in its criminal investigation of Mr. Trump’s handling of government records.In their filing, Mr. Trump’s lawyers did not ask the Supreme Court to overturn a more important part of the appeals court’s ruling, which allowed the Justice Department to continue using the documents with classification markings in its criminal investigation of Mr. Trump’s handling of government records.
Still, subjecting the roughly 100 documents with classification markings to review would have significantly complicated the process because the first step would have been to show the files to Mr. Trump’s lawyers so they could decide whether to claim that any are protected by attorney-client or executive privilege.Still, subjecting the roughly 100 documents with classification markings to review would have significantly complicated the process because the first step would have been to show the files to Mr. Trump’s lawyers so they could decide whether to claim that any are protected by attorney-client or executive privilege.
Some of the files with those markings are very highly classified — top secret, with further access restrictions for so-called sensitive compartmented information. A government lawyer has questioned whether any of Mr. Trump’s lawyers can be deemed to meet the standards, including a “need to know,” to be shown them.Some of the files with those markings are very highly classified — top secret, with further access restrictions for so-called sensitive compartmented information. A government lawyer has questioned whether any of Mr. Trump’s lawyers can be deemed to meet the standards, including a “need to know,” to be shown them.
A lawyer for Mr. Trump, Chris Kise, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Mr. Trump’s filing last week had gestured toward larger issues.
“The unprecedented circumstances presented by this case — an investigation of the 45th president of the United States by the administration of his political rival and successor — compelled the district court to acknowledge the significant need for enhanced vigilance and to order the appointment of a special master to ensure fairness, transparency and maintenance of the public trust,” the application said.
A lawyer for Mr. Trump, Christopher M. Kise, did not respond to a request for comment.
In a filing on Tuesday, the Justice Department said the justices should not intervene because the appeals court had the authority to rule on the narrow question at issue in Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court request. The justices apparently agreed.In a filing on Tuesday, the Justice Department said the justices should not intervene because the appeals court had the authority to rule on the narrow question at issue in Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court request. The justices apparently agreed.
Last week, the 11th Circuit called for briefs on a relatively brisk schedule on the Justice Department’s broader appeal from a Sept. 5 ruling by Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Southern District of Florida appointing a special master. That briefing will conclude on Nov. 17, and the appeals court will presumably hear arguments in the following weeks.Last week, the 11th Circuit called for briefs on a relatively brisk schedule on the Justice Department’s broader appeal from a Sept. 5 ruling by Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Southern District of Florida appointing a special master. That briefing will conclude on Nov. 17, and the appeals court will presumably hear arguments in the following weeks.
In the meantime, the special master appointed by Judge Cannon on Sept. 15, Judge Raymond J. Dearie of Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York, is continuing his work in carrying out Judge Cannon’s instructions to identify documents that may be subject to attorney-client or executive privilege.In the meantime, the special master appointed by Judge Cannon on Sept. 15, Judge Raymond J. Dearie of Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York, is continuing his work in carrying out Judge Cannon’s instructions to identify documents that may be subject to attorney-client or executive privilege.
The Supreme Court is dominated by six conservative justices, three of them appointed by Mr. Trump. But it has rejected previous efforts to block the disclosure of information about him.
Charlie Savage contributed reporting.Charlie Savage contributed reporting.