In the United States, the D.C. Circuit Court recently ruled against former President Joe Biden's emergency request to prevent the Department of Justice from releasing interview transcripts and audio recordings related to Special Counsel Robert Hur's investigation. The court's majority opinion stated that Biden did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his case, emphasizing the public's strong interest in assessing Hur's decision not to charge him. The ruling came after the Heritage Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act request for these materials, which are pertinent to the investigation of Biden's alleged mishandling of classified information. The court's decision also extended a temporary injunction until August 3, allowing Biden time to seek further relief from the Supreme Court. A federal appeals court had previously ruled against Biden, stating he was not entitled to an injunction blocking the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his conversations with his memoir's ghostwriter. The Heritage Foundation's lawsuit claimed that the government improperly withheld these materials, which date back to 2016 and 2017. The appeals court's majority noted that the primary issue was whether Biden could successfully argue that exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act applied to the recordings and transcripts. One exemption Biden sought was related to law enforcement records that could invade personal privacy if disclosed. However, the court found that the public interest in the special counsel's investigation outweighed Biden's privacy concerns, especially since the special counsel relied on the tapes and transcripts in their investigation. In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Florence Pan expressed her belief that Biden had a substantial privacy interest that should be considered. She argued that the public's interest did not outweigh Biden's privacy, particularly since many materials from the special counsel investigation had already been made public. Pan also noted that there was no urgency to release the materials at this time, suggesting that the court could have taken more time to weigh the competing interests involved.