Court Rejects Biden Bid to Block Ghostwriter Recordings

A divided federal appeals court has rejected former President Joe Biden’s attempt to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts of his interviews with a memoir ghostwriter, ruling that the public interest in disclosure outweighs his privacy claims. The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, issued Monday, has been suspended until August 3 to allow Biden time to pursue further appeal.

The Ruling

The panel’s majority — composed of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, and Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee — found a “substantial” public interest in releasing the materials, which were obtained by Special Counsel Robert Hur during his investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents. The court noted that redactions to the recordings would help protect Biden’s privacy.

“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,” the majority wrote, as reported by the Associated Press.

Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, dissented, arguing that the former president had demonstrated a “substantial privacy interest” in keeping the material hidden. “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.

The Ghostwriter Recordings

The recordings at the center of the dispute feature interviews between Biden and Mark Zwonitzer, the ghostwriter who co-authored two of his memoirs: “Promises to Keep” (2007) and “Promise Me, Dad” (2017). The conversations took place at Biden’s home in 2016 and 2017, following his vice presidency, and focused heavily on the life and death of his son Beau, who succumbed to brain cancer in 2015.

Biden’s lawyers have argued that the conversations were candid, personal, and intended to remain private, and were provided to the Department of Justice “on the express condition they stay that way,” according to NPR’s coverage of his May 2026 lawsuit.

The Legal Battle

The case traces back to March 2024, when the conservative Heritage Foundation sued the Justice Department under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking the transcripts and recordings. During the Biden administration, the DOJ argued the materials were exempt from disclosure. However, after President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, the New York Post reported that the Trump administration reversed course in February 2026, deciding the recordings should be released.

Biden sued in May 2026 to prevent the release, and U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich — a Trump appointee — ruled against him in June, finding the public interest outweighed his privacy rights. Monday’s appeals court decision upheld that reasoning.

The Special Counsel Investigation

The recordings were obtained by Special Counsel Robert Hur, who was appointed in January 2023 to investigate Biden’s retention of classified documents from his time as a U.S. senator and vice president. Hur’s February 2024 report declined to prosecute Biden, citing insufficient evidence and describing the then-president as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” — a characterization that ignited political controversy.

Transcripts of Biden’s interviews with Hur, released in March 2024, showed the president struggling to recall key dates, including the year of his son Beau’s death. The political fallout from those revelations contributed to questions about Biden’s mental fitness during his reelection campaign, and he withdrew from the 2024 race in July of that year following a poor debate performance against Trump.

Political Context

Biden spokesperson T.J. Ducklo condemned the ruling, framing the DOJ’s reversal under the Trump administration as a political attack. “Reversing course and making them public is just the latest example of this administration weaponizing the (Justice Department) for political retribution,” Ducklo said in a statement, as quoted by the Associated Press.

The case unfolds against a backdrop of intense partisan conflict over the handling of classified documents. Trump faced his own criminal case for allegedly refusing to return classified documents to the National Archives — a case that was dismissed after his 2024 election victory.

What’s Next

The court has suspended its decision until August 3, 2026, giving Biden time to seek further review. He may request an en banc hearing before the full D.C. Circuit or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. If no stay is granted, the recordings and transcripts — likely with redactions — could be released to Congress and the Heritage Foundation shortly thereafter.

The case raises significant legal questions about the intersection of privacy rights, FOIA disclosure mandates, and the treatment of materials obtained through criminal investigations that do not result in charges. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling that such materials “became subject to FOIA’s disclosure mandate when the Special Counsel obtained possession of them as part of his investigation” could have broader implications for privacy protections in similar contexts.

For Biden, the potential release threatens to reignite public debate about his mental acuity and could shape his legacy as he navigates life after the presidency.