The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
It's hard to keep up with all of the Trump goings-on.
Cannon rules for Trump.
Cannon gets reversed by CA11.
Cannon appoints Special Master per Trump's request.
Special Master rules against Trump.
Cannon overrules Special Master.
Read the latest order here, where Judge Cannon says that the Special Master was wrong to force Trump to verify certain items and also tells the Special Master that he's moving too fast.
...and it's the long conference in the Supreme Court.
Today at SCOTUS: The justices meet privately for their annual "long conference" to review cert petitions that have rolled in over the summer. They'll also likely discuss the status of the Dobbs leak investigation and whether to continue live audio of oral arguments this term.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) September 28, 2022
The Dolphins are 3-0 and play tomorrow night.
What else is cooking?
Stay safe out there.
11:45am update- All courthouse locations in the district will be closed tomorrow (Wednesday). Miami and Fort Pierce will also be closed on Thursday.
Tough loss for the Canes on Saturday but it may not hurt recruiting that much if the Name, Image, and Likeness money keeps flowing. Last Thursday Judge Singhal, who played baseball at Rice, moderated a panel at UM law school exploring the legal dynamics of this NIL era. In short: it's complicated. Some states have NIL laws, others don't, and at least one state (Alabama) passed a law and then repealed it. Meanwhile, SCOTUS--with Justice Kavanaugh leading the charge--seems ready to endorse a pay-for-play model. It's the wild west right now (a QB recruit is allegedly getting 8 million to play for Tennessee). Will be interesting to see how this shakes out over the next few years.
The "Jefes" were out in force yesterday at the SDFL's Hispanic Heritage event. Judge Ruiz led a panel discussion with Chief Judge Altonaga, Chief Magistrate Judge Torres, Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos Muniz, and Chief Judge Ivan Fernandez of the Third District Court of Appeal. There was also a cool intro video where other Hispanic chief judges from other districts talked about their heritage and offered advice.
At the reception, the district put up poster boards of all the district's Hispanic judges. Was impressive to see how many we have (and have had). Didn't know Judge Nesbitt had a Hispanic background. Going to be hard to top this one. Maybe Justice Sotomayor, who has some Miami connections, next year?
Here's the per curiam opinion, which reverses Judge Cannon and grants the requested stay.
The panel was Rosembaum, Grant, Brasher.
It starts this way:
Following the execution of a search warrant at the residence of Plaintiff-Appellee, former President Donald J.Trump, Plaintiff moved for the appointment of a special master to review the documents that Defendant-Appellant United States of America seized. The district court granted that motion in substantial part. Now, the United States moves for a partial stay of the district court's order as it relates to the roughly one-hundred documents bearing classification markings. We decide only the narrow question presented: whether the United States has established that it is entitled to a stay of the district court's order, to the extent that it(l)requires the government to submit for the special master's review the documents with classification markings and (2) enjoins the United States from using that subset of documents in a criminal investigation. We conclude that it has.
We stress the limited nature of our review: this matter comes to us on a motion for a partial stay pending appeal. We can not (and do not) decide the merits of this case. We decide only the traditional equitable considerations, including whether the United States has shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the mer its, the harm each party might suffer from a stay, and where the public interest lies.
For the reasons we explain below, we grant the United States's motion for a partial stay pending appeal.
Our current U.S. Attorney, Tony Gonzalez, appeared before the special master in New York, along with a number of other DOJ lawyers. When is the last time a U.S. Attorney appeared in a different district? Interesting.
In any event, the special master appeared pretty skeptical about Trump's claims... saying at one point you can't have your cake and eat it. Here's some coverage from the Hill:
In a Tuesday conference, Dearie appeared unsatisfied with the response, indicating that further explanation would be necessary only if criminal charges were filed.
He said if Trump’s lawyers will not actually assert that the records have been declassified and the Justice Department instead makes an acceptable case that they remain classified, then “as far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of it.”
James Trusty, a lawyer for Trump, said the legal team was “not in a position” to say whether the documents were declassified without first reviewing them, to which Dearie responded, “You did bring a lawsuit.”
Trump’s lawyers have failed to assert in court that Trump declassified the documents even as they seek to cast doubt on whether the documents are still classified.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it,” Dearie said.
Dearie also seemed to cast doubt on whether Trump’s legal team would be able to review all the classified documents, noting that some of the records are restricted to those with a need to know.
Trump also filed his brief in the 11th Circuit. Here ya go.
What a game! It just shows that you're never out of it and to keep fighting.
On that note, DOJ is in the 11th Circuit fighting to get a stay of Judge Cannon's order. Its brief is here. Trump has to respond by Wednesday.
And Philip Esformes is still fighting, also now in the 11th Circuit. His oral argument was Friday. Although the panel expressed dismay at the prosecutor's handling of the case, it also expressed doubt about doing anything about it. Unfortunately, it cited my old case -- United States v. Shaygan. From Law360:
During oral arguments in Miami, Esformes' counsel, James C. Martin of Reed Smith LLP, insisted that reversal is warranted because the trial court should have disqualified the prosecution team for misconduct, including invading attorney-client and work product privilege in a raid on one of Esformes' facilities and in secret recordings of his conversations.
But U.S. Circuit Judge William H. Pryor Jr. said the argument "seems to be foreclosed by a long line of precedent."
The Eleventh Circuit's chief judge said the appeals court has held that disqualification is not required for intrusion into attorney-client privilege absent a showing of actual prejudice, but in his initial brief, Esformes presented an argument of "structural error," based on prosecutors allegedly injecting their self-interests into the proceedings over his pretrial motion for dismissal or disqualification.
"You haven't really made a case for actual prejudice. You have to make the argument for the first time in the blue brief," Judge Pryor added, referring to the required color for the cover sheet of an appellant's initial brief.
Martin argued that the threat of prejudice has also been held to be sufficient grounds for dismissal. He pointed to a friend of the court brief that several former U.S. attorneys general, including Edwin Meese, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez, filed in support of Esformes, which Martin said stated that such a threat "sticks to the case" and "taints the entire prosecution."
U.S. Circuit Judge Jill Pryor said that argument would seem to undermine the need to show actual prejudice in any case involving a privilege intrusion.
What's different here, Martin responded, is the level of intrusion.
"It's unprecedented," he said.
Judge William Pryor expressed agreement about that but noted the district court made a finding there was no prejudice and repeated that he did not see where Esformes' side had made an argument about that.
The chief judge also expressed doubts about Martin's argument that prosecutors improperly injected their personal interests by being represented individually by outside counsel and raising arguments about their career prospects during the disqualification motion proceedings.
"Of course they have a right to counsel, don't they?" he asked.
The judge cited the Eleventh Circuit's 2011 decision in USA v. Shaygan , in which the court found a district court violated two prosecutors' constitutional due process rights by sanctioning them without providing notice of charges of misconduct and an opportunity to be heard.
