últimas notícias

She named Raymond J. Dearie, a semiretired judge in the Eastern District of New York suggested by Mr. Trump’s team, to fill the role. His job is to oversee a review of all the documents by the two sides and then to write a report by mid-December recommending how she should consider ruling on any privilege claims for which they disagree.

Judge Cannon also surprised experts by declaring that the review would not only see if the F.B.I.’s own filter team had missed any documents that may be protected by attorney-client privilege, which is routine, but also identify some as protected by executive privilege, which would be unprecedented.

In its new filing, the Justice Department challenged her orders on multiple grounds.

First, it argued that she had no jurisdiction to intervene, pointing to the 11th Circuit panel’s own analysis when it removed documents with classified markings from the special master’s review.

The three judges — including two Trump appointees — had said none of the legal factors that would justify judicial intervention were met in this situation. In particular, they noted that Judge Cannon herself had said one condition — whether the F.B.I. had acted in “callous disregard” of Mr. Trump’s rights — had not been met in this instance, and cited a precedent saying that factor was “indispensable” for creating a basis for a judge to step in.

The full appeal may not be heard by the same judges who ruled on the earlier stay motion. But the Justice Department urged the judges on the new panel to follow their colleagues’ reasoning and overturn her orders on jurisdictional grounds alone.

The department also argued that even if she did have did have sufficient jurisdiction, Judge Cannon was wrong to block criminal investigators from reviewing or using any of the seized records.

The government repeated its earlier arguments that it needed access to the documents marked classified both “to assess the full scope of the risk to national security posed by the improper storage of these records,” and because they may be “evidence of obstruction of justice” in light of the Trump team’s false claim to have fully complied with the subpoena.