The decision not to bring criminal charges against Donald Trump Jr. and others was one of the redacted passages in the report.
In an 18-page opinion issued Tuesday, a three-judge of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit unanimously ruled that there is a "significant public interest" in lifting the veil of secrecy and that "disclosure would also show how the Special Counsel interpreted the relevant law and applied it to
The Justice Department wanted the passages kept from public view to protect the privacy of the people in question. The court determined that the rights were diminished by the other parts of the report after reviewing an un redacted copy of the report, which summarized the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and then-president Donald Trump's attempts to obstruct the inquiry.
The factual and personally identifying information is available elsewhere in the Report. There are no new facts or descriptions of conduct that have not been made public elsewhere in the Report. The privacy interests are not strong, as there is no additional harm that can result from the disclosure of the information.
The scale of favor for disclosure is influenced by the strong public interest, as releasing this information would show only government decisionmaking, not new private information. Karen Henderson is a George H.W. Bush appointee.
The Department of Justice must remove redactions from a number of passages that discuss the decision not to charge people with campaign finance violations and a computer-related crime, according to the appeals court opinion.
The court rejected the request because it would reveal new details about the individuals who were investigated for making false statements but not charged, and would cause repercussions.
Only one public official has privacy interests that may be jeopardized by the disclosure of requested information. The opinion said that the remaining individuals are private citizens who served on a presidential campaign.
The Department of Justice can appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
The government said that the report has already been made public and that Congress also released its report about Russia's interference in the election. The appeals court said that the government argument was irrelevant because the legal analysis of whether to bring charges had not been released.
The public portion of the report about Donald Trump Jr. and his communication with the website was smilngly smilngly smilngly smilngly smilngly smilngly smilngly smilngly Last year, the government was forced to uncensor parts of the Muller report relating to WikiLeaks. The passages show that the office of the special counsel investigated the hacking of the Democratic National Committee as well as possible campaign finance violations, but chose not to bring criminal charges. 37 indictments and seven convictions were produced by the probe.
The Department of Justice was sued for a complete, un-redacted copy of the report. The report had already been made public, so the government would have to explain the reasons for each redaction in a public records request. That would allow for a challenge to the redactions. The news organization was ordered to release dozens of secret passages in the report by the US District Court Judge Reggie Walton.
The lower court rejected the attempts by the news organization to get the additional sections of the report released. The appeals court said that the Justice Department should be ordered to give the full report to the public.
The public has a right to understand how the government makes important decisions, according to Matt Topic, the attorney for BuzzFeed News.
It is encouraging when courts apply the law and hold the government to its transparency obligations.
