A federal appeals court declined former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s request to block the release of recorded interviews he conducted with his ghostwriter for his 2017 memoir. The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a 2-1 decision on Monday, ruling that Biden had not met the legal standard needed to obtain an injunction preventing the Justice Department from making the tapes and transcripts public. However, the court delayed enforcement of the ruling until Aug. 3, allowing Biden time to seek further appeals.
The recordings, which feature interviews between Biden and Mark Zwonitzer, who ghostwrote “Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship and Purpose,” were obtained by the Justice Department during a special counsel’s inquiry into whether Biden had improperly retained classified documents from his tenure as vice president. The investigation, led by special counsel Robert K. Hur, concluded in 2024 without charges, though the report suggested Biden had “willfully” held onto classified materials, despite insufficient evidence to support prosecution.
Biden’s legal team contended the interviews were intended to remain private and had been stored on a hard drive turned over by Zwonitzer to the special counsel. During the probe, Hur described Biden as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” The Justice Department, under the Biden administration, resisted efforts from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank seeking access to the tapes, citing privacy exemptions. The department’s stance shifted under the subsequent administration, which moved to release the materials in February 2026.
In their decision, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judge Gregory G. Katsas emphasized that the Justice Department’s redactions adequately addressed Biden’s privacy concerns. The majority opinion acknowledged Biden’s personal privacy interest in his private conversations with his coauthor conducted at his home, but noted that the redactions “meaningfully narrow the requested disclosure’s incursion on that interest.”
Judge Florence Y. Pan dissented, highlighting the potential harm to Biden from even the redacted release. She argued that Biden “deserves special solicitude as the target of an investigation who ultimately was not charged with any crime,” underscoring concerns about the impact on the former president.
The decision marks a significant development in ongoing disputes over access to sensitive materials connected to Biden’s time in office and raises questions about the balance between public interest and personal privacy in high-profile investigations.