just overrule federal followed a judges order for a special master in the documents case, the court of appeals said that judge, not only did not have a right to issue that order, she did not even have a right to even hear the case. the court of appeals wrote, on october 5th this court approved the government s request for expedited briefing in its appeal of this september 5th order blocking review of the seized documents and directing the appointment of a special master. now, with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintive initial motion, or to issue any orders in response to it. joining us now is professor laurence tribe who is taught constitutional law at harvard law school for five decades. professor tribe, thank you very much for joining us tonight. what is the potential appeals process for donald trump on
found her, you cannot drag her into this and treat her like your puppet. remarkably, she was willing to act as his puppet when she and initially took jurisdiction of the case i wrote that i thought that, basically, she was in the tank for donald trump. now the court of appeals was too polite to say that, but there is no one who could read what it said as anything other than, not just a slap down, but a failing grade, basically telling her you do not know what a judge is supposed to be or do. there are only three paths that you have left open to us, follow the law, which means that you should not have taken the case at all, say that federal judges can judge jump in and interfere with criminal prosecutions even when there is a legal search just because
appeals court ruled against him in the same case. so we have traveled this road before, which is why i do not think we need to spend a lot of time on the appeals question tonight. but, i would like to get your reading of this opinion because it is so fascinating. it is so hugely important and, as these things go, so economical and so short. 19 pages of pros and it just hammers down and knocks down every single thing that judge cannon was doing in this case. right. i think glenn kershner put it well when he said it was a rule of law poetry. it has the economy of poetry, but it is real pros. very elegant, very simple, and you quoted the relevant part. the answer is no, no donald, you cannot drag a judge just because you appointed her and
is for the home of a former president. doesn t get to do license to interfere in an ongoing investigation. very bluntly, lawrence, they said judge cannon interfered in an ongoing criminal federal investigation. that stings. by mid way, how to discipline for you. i think the thing that is most revealing here is the way they sort of dissect what judge cannon did and her decision. the standard that a quarter sponsors levant circuit. when they re trying to invoke their equitable jurisdiction. they take action on summer showing irreparable harm, the likelihood of the legal remedy. the very first question a judge has to answer is whether there has been a callous disregard for the constitutional rights of the plaintive. and here, judge candid even
continue its criminal investigation, and maybe there s an indictment, maybe there isn t. the search gets challenged in that context. if there is an indictment. what trump was trying to do was to kneecap the governments investigation. and that s what judge cannon went along with. so it is not surprising this 11th circuit panel said you can t do this. the reasons precisely is described in the exit that you had. either in doing this, the 11th circuit would ve had to have created a special role. that applied only to former president donald trump, or they could ve created a bill that would applied to every criminal defendant. and it may be impossible for the government to conduct its with extensive judicial oversight that would ve crippled the government, and the court system. so given those bad choices. they have a circuit said, you know, we re going to stick with existing law. we re going to discuss this lawsuit. we direct link island to