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.