What did the 11th Circuit say when it vacated Judge Cannon’s special‑master order in the Mar‑a‑Lago case?
Executive summary
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously vacated U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order appointing a special master to review documents seized from Mar‑a‑Lago, concluding the district court lacked equitable jurisdiction to interpose itself in an ongoing criminal investigation and that the appointment improperly blocked the government’s use of seized materials [1] [2]. The panel stayed parts of Cannon’s order as applied to classified documents and directed dismissal of Trump’s civil suit challenging the government’s review, stressing that courts may not create a special rule allowing search-warrant subjects—or only former presidents—to disrupt lawful law‑enforcement searches [1] [3].
1. What the court actually did, in plain language
In a per curiam, unanimous decision the 11th Circuit reversed Cannon’s appointment of a special master and vacated her order insofar as it interfered with the Justice Department’s review and use of the seized materials, and it instructed that the civil proceeding should be dismissed because the district court “improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction” after the warrant execution [1] [2]. The appeals court stayed the special‑master review as to classified documents—effectively barring the special master and Trump’s lawyers from viewing the roughly one‑hundred documents bearing classification markings—while permitting the government to resume its review and use of those materials for investigative and prosecutorial purposes [3] [4].
2. The legal reasoning: jurisdiction, separation of powers, and precedent
The panel framed its decision around longstanding limits on federal‑court equitable intervention in active law‑enforcement investigations, warning that permitting such intervention would “radically reorder” case law and violate “bedrock separation‑of‑powers limitations”; the court said it could not create a rule that lets any subject of a search warrant, much less only former presidents, block government investigations after a warrant has been executed [2] [1]. The 11th Circuit treated Cannon’s special‑master appointment as an overreach—an attempt to use civil equitable powers to micromanage a criminal investigation—and concluded that the district court lacked authority to issue the relief Trump sought after the FBI’s lawful search [1] [2].
3. What the opinion said about classified material and national‑security concerns
The appeals court explicitly limited the district‑court interference with classified documents, endorsing the Justice Department’s argument that national‑security concerns justified blocking the special master and Trump’s team from accessing certain materials; that narrowing was a central practical relief the government sought and obtained on appeal [3] [4]. The panel’s stay and vacatur recognized that classified records create distinct risks and that allowing a court‑appointed reviewer and private counsel unfettered access could frustrate national‑security protections embedded in the executive branch’s control of classified information [3].
4. Tone, composition, and the court’s rebuke of the lower court
The decision was unanimous and per curiam, underscoring a clear, institutional rebuke of Cannon’s orders; the three‑judge panel that issued the ruling included two Trump appointees and one George H.W. Bush appointee, signaling that the panel’s objections were doctrinal rather than purely partisan [2]. Reporting described the ruling as a “blistering” corrective that granted the government all the relief it sought on the classified‑material issue and as a wholesale victory for prosecutors against an unprecedented use of equitable power to stall an investigation [4] [1].
5. Immediate aftermath and remaining open questions
After the 11th Circuit’s decision, Judge Cannon moved quickly to trim parts of her own special‑master order consistent with the appellate ruling—excluding classified documents from the special master’s review—and the government resumed its work on those materials as the criminal probe continued; the appeals court’s vacatur left broader questions about when, if ever, courts may supervise post‑search reviews unresolved and signaled that lower courts must respect separation‑of‑powers limits in similar contexts [5] [4] [6]. Reporting shows the appellate ruling was decisive for the Justice Department’s immediate investigative posture but does not resolve potential further appeals or doctrinal disputes that might surface in other cases where civil and criminal processes collide [7] [8].