US judge grants Trump request for special review of Mar-a-Lago documents

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a legal victory for former US president Donald Trump, a federal judge on Monday granted his request for a special master to review documents seized by the FBI from his Florida home and also temporarily halted the Justice Department’s own use of the records for investigative purposes.

The decision by US District Judge Aileen Cannon authorizes an outside expert to review the records taken during the August 8 search and to weed out any from the rest of the investigation that might be protected by claims of attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. Some of those records may ultimately be returned to him, but the judge put off a ruling on that question.

The order came despite the strenuous objections of the Justice Department, which said an outside legal expert was not necessary, in part because officials had already completed their review of potentially privileged documents.

The appointment appears likely to slow the pace of the department’s investigation into the presence of top-secret information at Mar-a-Lago, particularly given the judge’s directive that the Justice Department may not for the moment use any of the seized materials as part of its investigation into the illegal storage of government secrets at the Florida property.

“The Court is mindful that restraints on criminal prosecutions are disfavored, but finds that these unprecedented circumstances call for a brief pause to allow for neutral, third-party review to ensure a just process with adequate safeguards,” Cannon, a Trump appointee, wrote in her 24-page order.

Even so, it is not clear that the decision will have a significant effect on any investigative or charging decisions, or the ultimate outcome of the probe. A separate assessment by the US intelligence community of the risk posed by the apparent mishandling of classified records will continue under the judge’s order.

The Justice Department did not have an immediate comment, and a lawyer for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A photo of the affidavit by the FBI in support of obtaining a search warrant for former US president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, August 26, 2022 (AP Photo/Jon Elswick)

Trump’s lawyers had argued that a special master — usually an outside lawyer or former judge — was necessary to ensure an independent review of records taken during the search. Such a review was necessary, they have said, so that any personal information or documents recovered by the FBI could be filtered out and returned to Trump, and so that any documents protected by privilege could also be segregated from the rest of the investigation.

In this case, the seized records “include medical documents, correspondence related to taxes, and accounting information,” according to the judge’s order.

The judge said it was too soon to know whether any of the records would be returned to Trump, but “for now, the circumstances surrounding the seizure in this case and the associated need for adequate procedural safeguards are sufficiently compelling to at least get Plaintiff past the courthouse doors.”

The Justice Department had argued against the appointment, saying it was unnecessary because it had already reviewed potentially privileged documents and identified a limited subset of materials that could be covered by attorney-client privilege.

It also said Trump was not entitled to the return of any of the presidential records that were taken since he was no longer president and the documents therefore did not belong to him. And personal items that were recovered were commingled with classified information, giving them potential value as evidence, the department has said.

Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump in 2020, had signaled in a brief order last month that she was inclined to appoint a special master and did so again during arguments last week, asking at one point, “Ultimately, what is the harm in the appointment of a special master to sort through these issues without creating undo delay?”