(Photo
by
PAUL
J.
RICHARDS/AFP/Getty
Images)
Last
night,
the
Eleventh
Circuit
delivered
the
expected
death
blow
to
the
special
master
review
of
documents
seized
August
8
at
the
former
president’s
Mar-a-Lago
club
pursuant
to
a
judicially
authorized
warrant.
The
appellate
panel
of
two
Trump
appointed
jurists
and
conservative
“Dubya”
appointee
Chief
Judge
William
Pryor
held
that
the
trial
court
abused
its
discretion
in
arrogating
to
itself
jurisdiction
over
the
seized
materials.
It
was
a
total
humiliation
for
US
District
Judge
Aileen
Cannon,
who
bent
over
backwards
to
give
Trump
everything
he
wanted,
even
when
his
lawyers
failed
to
plead
it
cogently,
or
at
all.
“This
appeal
requires
us
to
consider
whether
the
district
court
had
jurisdiction
to
block
the
United
States
from
using
lawfully
seized
records
in
a
criminal
investigation,”
the
per
curiam
opinion
begins.
“The
answer
is
no.”
The
issue
here,
as
it
was
during
the
emergency
appeal
when
the
appellate
panel
reversed
the
prohibition
on
the
Justice
Department
using
the
seized
classified
documents
in
its
criminal
investigation,
is
the
standard
to
invoke
equitable
jurisdiction.
And
indeed
the
four-factor
test
laid
out
in
Richey
v.
Smith
is
no
more
satisfied
with
the
rest
of
the
seized
stuff
than
it
was
for
the
top
secret
documents
Trump
stuck
in
his
luggage
and
stashed
in
his
pool
locker.
Most
importantly,
there’s
been
no
argument
that
the
essential
first
factor,
“callous
disregard”
for
the
plaintiff’s
constitutional
rights,
has
been
met
here.
Trump’s
lawyer
Jim
Trusty
invented
an
alternate
reality
in
which
a
plaintiff
gets
to
examine
the
underlying
affidavit
and
litigate
the
character
of
each
item
seized
in
an
effort
to
determine
if
the
search
was
lawful.
But
that’s
not
how
any
of
this
goes!
“Plaintiff’s
lawyers
claimed
at
oral
argument
that
the
special
master
process
is
necessary
to
determine
whether
a
constitutional
violation
happened,”
the
court
writes.
“This
justification
finds
no
support
in
our
precedent
and
would
result
in
a
dramatic
and
unwarranted
expansion
of
equitable
jurisdiction.”
Because
if
they
allow
Trump
to
get
a
special
master
review
of
a
judicially
authorized
warrant
absent
any
indication
that
the
search
was
illegal,
then
there
will
be
nothing
anomalous
about
this
so-called
anomalous
jurisdiction.
Either
this
relief
will
be
available
to
everyone,
or
the
court
can
follow
Judge
Cannon’s
plan
and
magic
up
a
rule
that
applies
only
to
former
presidents.
In
considering
these
arguments,
we
are
faced
with
a
choice:
apply
our
usual
test;
drastically
expand
the
availability
of
equitable
jurisdiction
for
every
subject
of
a
search
warrant;
or
carve
out
an
unprecedented
exception
in
our
law
for
former
presidents.
We
choose
the
first
option.
So
the
case
must
be
dismissed.
To
say
the
panel
was
unimpressed
with
Judge
Cannon’s
reasoning
would
be
a
gross
understatement.
At
one
point
they
note
that
she
was
“undeterred
by
[the]
lack
of
information”
supporting
Trump’s
claim
to
have
a
pressing
need
to
get
his
Celine
Dion
photos
back
pronto.
But
the
judges
seemed
patently
appalled
that
a
federal
judge
would
find
fear
of
criminal
prosecution
to
be
a
legally
cognizable
interest
in
property
seized
pursuant
to
a
warrant.
“No
doubt
the
threat
of
prosecution
can
weigh
heavily
on
the
mind
of
anyone
under
investigation,”
they
note
incredulously.
“But
without
diminishing
the
seriousness
of
the
burden,
that
ordinary
experience
cannot
support
extraordinary
jurisdiction.”
In
short,
it
was
a
total
beatdown.
Finding
that
the
lower
court
“improperly
exercised
equitable
jurisdiction,”
the
panel
vacated
the
September
5
special
master
appointment
in
its
entirety
and
remanded
the
case
with
an
order
for
Judge
Cannon
to
dismiss.
They
stayed
the
order
for
a
week
to
allow
Trump
to
try
his
luck
with
the
Supreme
Court,
which
already
declined
to
intervene
regarding
the
classified
documents.
Meanwhile
over
at
Truth
Social,
the
former
president
is
busy
confessing
to
crimes.
“When
will
you
invade
the
other
Presidents’
homes
in
search
of
documents,
which
are
voluminous,
which
they
took
with
them,
but
not
nearly
so
openly
and
transparently
as
I
did?”
he
screeched
into
the
ether.
Hey,
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith
…
you
up?
Trump
v.
United
States
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]
Liz
Dye
lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics.
Kathryn
