Justice Dept. asks Supreme Court to deny Trump's request in Mar-a-Lago case
Source: Washington Post
The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to deny a petition from Donald Trump’s attorneys in the Mar-a-Lago search case, arguing that allowing an outside arbiter to review the classified documents seized from the former president’s Florida residence would “irreparably injure” the government and that Trump has no “plausible” claims of ownership over these sensitive government materials.
Trump’s legal team last week made a technical and narrow petition to the court, asking the justices to reconsider a portion of an appeals court ruling that granted the Justice Department’s request to keep the classified documents separate from a review of seized material being conducted by the outside expert, known as a special master.
FBI agents seized more than 11,000 documents from Trump’s Florida residence and private club, including 103 with a variety of classification markings.
The former president’s lawyers have argued that the appeals court lacked authority to prohibit the special master from reviewing the classified materials. They asked the Supreme Court to allow the outside expert to examine those sensitive government documents.
In its September ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit also said Justice Department could immediately resume using the classified documents in its criminal investigation — something that the lower court had prohibited until the special master completed his review. While Trump’s lawyers requested that the Supreme Court allow the classified documents to be reviewed, they did not ask the justices to prohibit the government from using those materials in its criminal probe.
The Justice Department on Tuesday pushed back against the Trump lawyers’ arguments that the appeals court lacked jurisdiction to say what the special master could review, saying the panel of judges had authority to review the entire ruling appointing a special master, not just portions of it.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/11/trump-supreme-court-special-master-justice-department/
= new reply since forum marked as read
6 to 3 granting tfg's request.
I could be wrong........it could be 5 to 4.
following their inherent conservative, republican, self opinions.
And also, hmmmmmm "what would tfg have us rule on" since his opinion has a huge impact on those six.
Those six, especially the last three, cater to tfg's every whim.................it seems like to me.
But I do agree with you about it being the final straw. 
How they pointed out that Plaintiff wants to reduce the whole thing to just a "housekeeping" document dispute over storage. How they pointed out that, if they want to reduce the argument to a PRA issue (where there is no specified punishment), they have filed in the wrong court! That, under PRA, the district court in DC is the proper court! It made Trump look like an idiot!
I also am one that appreciates well written, clear briefs, and the Government has produced yet another one. Sometimes, it is only well written when it appears clear and logical, and supported with facts. In this brief, the Gov has pointed out time and again how the Plaintiff's arguments are unsupported or simply not addressing the issues. They did not say, "Hey Guys, this is garbage," but instead addressed every facet that the SC would need to make an informed decision. They did not require much work from the Supremes, unlike Plaintiff who wants them to fill in all the gaps.
We will see what happens. If Thomas screws around, we will know the state of the USSC, if ever we now have doubts.
