WASHINGTON — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied former President Joe Biden's bid to block the Justice Department from releasing redacted transcripts and audio recordings of his conversations with biographer Mark Zwonitzer to the Heritage Foundation. The court stayed its opinion until August 3 to allow time for further appeals.

The decision was issued by a 2-1 three-judge panel. Judges Sri Srinivasan and Gregory Katsas authored the majority opinion, while Judge Florence Pan dissented from the decision.

Srinivasan wrote for the majority that the panel had to weigh privacy interests against public transparency. “We conclude that Biden has not shown a likelihood that the requested materials must be withheld from disclosure,” Srinivasan said. The majority further determined that privacy concerns were outweighed by the need for public understanding of the investigation.

“We conclude that any remaining incursion on personal privacy from disclosure of the now-redacted materials likely does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure,” he said. The opinion noted that disclosure of the materials “is likely to advance” the public interest in understanding and assessing the Special Counsel's investigation. The court also ruled that the material “became subject to FOIA’s disclosure mandate when the Special Counsel obtained possession of them as part of his investigation.” Additionally, the court ruled Biden had not shown sufficient evidence that he would “suffer irreparable harm” if the material was released.

Addressing the privacy argument, the majority opinion noted that although there is generally a substantial privacy interest in not being identified as the target of an investigation that results in no charges, the Department of Justice announced the Special Counsel's appointment. The Special Counsel Report describes at length that Biden was investigated for allegedly retaining and disclosing classified materials.

Judge Pan offered a contrasting view in her dissenting opinion. “In my view, Biden has shown a substantial privacy interest,” Pan wrote. She emphasized the setting in which the conversations occurred and the nature of the government's acquisition of the tapes.

“The conversations at issue took place in Biden's home, and the recordings of them were obtained by the government in the course of a criminal investigation that did not lead to an indictment,” Pan wrote. She argued that the ruling “will result in the premature release of Biden's concededly private conversations.” Pan concluded her dissent by noting the procedural consequence of the release, writing, “That, of course, will moot this case.”

TJ Ducklo, a spokesperson for Biden, responded to the ruling with a statement condemning the release. “President Biden's conversations for a book a decade ago that discussed his late son are private, and were provided to the Department of Justice on the express condition they stay that way,” Ducklo said. He characterized the decision as politically motivated.

“Reversing course and making them public is just the latest example of this Administration weaponizing the DOJ for political retribution,” Ducklo said. He added that the former president maintained respect for the judicial process despite his disagreement with the outcome. “It's wrong, and while President Biden disagrees with today's decision, he also respects the courts and the vital role an independent judiciary plays in a healthy democracy,” she said.

Biden's legal team had previously argued against disclosure in court filings. They stated, “The private conversations at issue were never intended to be shared with a wider audience, and the Department has them only because it collected the recordings as part of a criminal investigation that resulted in no charges.” The lawyers further argued, “This FOIA action has been pending for nearly two and a half years, and there is no meaningful public interest — let alone one that must be satisfied in the immediate days or weeks — in the disclosure of decade-old conversations of a former President who is now a private citizen, and who neither holds nor is seeking public office.” Lawyers for the Justice Department offered a different perspective, stating, Releasing the materials will allow the public to assess the persuasiveness of Hur's determinations. Biden's lawyers had also argued that disseminating his discussions with Zwonitzer would be harmful and likened their disclosure to the public release of diary entries or private text messages.

The court had previously issued an administrative injunction on July 10 stops the release of the material to the Heritage Foundation for 10 days. The July 10 injunction was set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on July 20. At that time, the court stated the purpose of the July 10 injunction was to “give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.” U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich initially rejected Biden's request to block the disclosure. Judge Dabney Friedrich agreed to stop the Trump administration from releasing the information for three weeks to give the D.C. Circuit time to decide whether to take action.

The recordings at issue date back to 2016 and 2017. Biden recorded conversations with biographer Mark Zwonitzer for his memoir, “Promise Me, Dad,” which was published in 2017. Mark Zwonitzer worked with Biden on two memoirs, 2007’s “Promises to Keep” and 2017's “Promise Me, Dad.” The Heritage Foundation gained interest in the recordings following an investigation by former special counsel Robert Hur into Biden's handling of sensitive government records.

Biden was not charged with any crimes stemming from Robert Hur's investigation. The special counsel's report was released in 2024. The Heritage Foundation filed suit against the Justice Department in March 2024 seeking the transcripts and recordings under the Freedom of Information Act. The special counsel's report included passages referencing Biden's conversations with Mark Zwonitzer. The Heritage Foundation filed a public records request for material the special counsel relied on to write specific portions of the report. The Justice Department initially withheld the audio tapes and most written transcripts, citing exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act. The Justice Department stated it intended to provide the material to Congress and the Heritage Foundation after President Trump returned to the White House. Biden moved to intervene in a lawsuit the Heritage Foundation filed in 2024 to force the release of the transcripts and tapes. Sri Srinivasan was nominated by President Barack Obama. Gregory Katsas was nominated by President Donald Trump. Florence Pan was nominated by Biden. Dabney Friedrich was nominated by President Donald Trump.

The release of these materials follows a special counsel investigation that examined Biden's handling of classified documents. The investigation resulted in no criminal charges, but the report contained detailed descriptions of Biden's memory and cognition during the period the recordings were made. The Heritage Foundation sought the records to allow public assessment of the special counsel's conclusions.

The Justice Department's decision to release the redacted versions aligns with Freedom of Information Act mandates after the materials entered government possession during the investigation. The case shows the tension between personal privacy rights for former officials and public interest in government investigations, even those that do not result in indictment.