Dissenting judge cites substantial privacy interest in Biden recordings
The unsigned opinion from the two-judge majority stated that the public’s right to access the material is strong enough to overcome Biden’s objections, particularly after the panel ordered redactions to address privacy concerns. “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 said.
Judge Florence Pan dissented from the decision. She argued that the former president’s privacy interest in the recordings was “substantial” given that they were made in his home and obtained during a criminal investigation that did not result in charges. “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.
The panel halted its mandate until Aug. 3 to give Biden time to petition the full D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court.