Biden Loses Appeal Seeking Privacy for Ghostwriter Audio and Transcripts/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ A federal appeals court rejected former President Joe Biden’s request to prevent the release of recordings and transcripts from interviews with his memoir ghostwriter. The divided panel found a substantial public interest in the redacted materials, while a dissenting judge emphasized Biden’s privacy rights. The decision is paused until Aug. 3, giving Biden time to pursue another appeal before the records can be disclosed.
Quick Look
- A federal appeals court ruled against Biden in a 2-1 decision.
- The case involves recordings and transcripts of interviews with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer.
- The interviews occurred at Biden’s home in 2016 and 2017.
- Zwonitzer worked with Biden on two memoirs.
- The majority found a “substantial” public interest in disclosure.
- Redactions are intended to protect Biden’s personal privacy.
- The ruling is suspended until Aug. 3.
- Biden can seek further review before the pause expires.
- Judge Florence Pan dissented, citing Biden’s “substantial privacy interest.”
- Special counsel Robert Hur obtained the recordings during a classified-documents investigation.
- Hur did not recommend criminal charges against Biden.
- Republicans in Congress later demanded access to the materials.
- The Heritage Foundation is also seeking the records.
- Biden argues the interviews were provided to the Justice Department on the condition they remain private.
- His spokesperson accused the Trump administration of using the department for political retaliation.
Deep Look
Appeals Court Rules Against Biden
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court rejected former President Joe Biden’s attempt to prevent the release of audio recordings and transcripts from interviews with the ghostwriter of his memoirs.
A divided three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 against Biden late Monday.
The court suspended its decision until Aug. 3, allowing the former president additional time to consider another appeal.
The ruling means the material will not necessarily be released immediately.
Court Finds Strong Public Interest
The panel’s majority found a “substantial” public interest in making the interviews available.
The judges noted that redactions to the recordings would help protect Biden’s private information.
“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 ruling stated.
The decision upheld a lower court’s finding that the public’s interest outweighed Biden’s remaining privacy concerns.
Judge Florence Pan Dissents
Judge Florence Pan, who was nominated to the appeals court by Biden, opposed the majority’s decision.
She said the former president demonstrated a “substantial privacy interest” in keeping the interviews confidential.
“The conversations at issue took place in Biden’s home, and the recordings of them were obtained by the government in the course of a criminal investigation that did not lead to an indictment,” Pan wrote.
Her dissent focused on the personal setting of the conversations and the fact that prosecutors did not charge Biden.
Other Judges Hear Appeal
The appeal was also considered by D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judge Gregory Katsas.
Srinivasan was nominated by President Barack Obama, under whom Biden served as vice president.
Katsas was nominated by President Donald Trump.
Trump lost the 2020 election to Biden before returning to the White House following the 2024 election.
Interviews Conducted for Biden Memoirs
Author Mark Zwonitzer interviewed Biden at his home in 2016 and 2017.
Zwonitzer worked with him on two memoirs: “Promises to Keep,” published in 2007, and “Promise Me, Dad,” released in 2017.
Biden’s lawyers said the conversations were candid, deeply personal and intended to remain confidential.
Some discussions involved the former president’s late son, Beau Biden.
Biden Disagrees With Ruling
Biden spokesperson T.J. Ducklo said the former president disagreed with the court but “respects the courts and the vital role an independent judiciary plays in a healthy democracy.”
Ducklo argued that the government received the material under an explicit privacy condition.
“President Biden’s conversations for a book a decade ago that discussed his late son are private, and were provided to the Department of Justice on the express condition they stay that way,” Ducklo said.
“Reversing course and making them public is just the latest example of this administration weaponizing the (Justice Department) for political retribution.”
Special Counsel Obtained Recordings
Special counsel Robert Hur obtained the recordings while investigating Biden’s handling of classified documents.
The inquiry examined records from Biden’s years as a US senator from Delaware and as Obama’s vice president.
Hur declined to recommend criminal charges against the then-president.
Republicans in Congress subsequently demanded the recordings and transcripts connected to the investigation.
Congress and Heritage Foundation Seek Records
Biden filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the Trump Justice Department from releasing the records.
Potential recipients include Congress and the conservative Heritage Foundation.
The Justice Department had previously argued that the recordings were exempt from disclosure under federal public-records law.
The department’s later willingness to release the material prompted Biden to seek judicial intervention.
District Court Previously Ruled Against Biden
Biden appealed after US District Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled against him in June.
Friedrich, who was nominated by Trump, concluded that public interest in the material outweighed Biden’s privacy rights.
The appeals panel’s majority declined to block that ruling while Biden’s broader appeal continued.
The decision places the material closer to public disclosure unless Biden obtains relief from the full appeals court or another court before Aug. 3.
Dissent Warns Case Could Become Moot
Pan argued that refusing to issue an injunction would effectively decide the dispute before the appeal could be fully considered.
Once the government releases the recordings, the disclosure cannot be reversed.
“That, of course, will moot this case,” she wrote.
Her dissent emphasized that the court could no longer provide meaningful privacy protection after the material becomes public.
Biden Can Pursue Another Appeal
The appeals court’s temporary pause gives Biden time to seek further review.
He could ask the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider the panel’s decision or pursue other available appellate options.
If no court extends the pause or grants an injunction, the government could move forward with disclosure after Aug. 3.
The timing and scope of any release would depend on the final resolution of the litigation and the redactions applied to the material.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.