Former President Joe Biden has gained a temporary legal victory, winning an additional three weeks to prevent the release of audio recordings and transcripts connected to Special Counsel Robert Hur’s classified documents investigation. A federal judge granted a temporary injunction, allowing an appeals court time to review Biden’s challenge before the materials can be made public.

The disputed recordings originate from Biden’s interviews with Mark Zwonitzer, the ghostwriter behind his 2017 memoir, Promise Me, Dad. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, issued an injunction pending appeal. The ruling temporarily blocks the Justice Department from releasing the records while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reviews the case. The decision followed Friedrich’s earlier denial of Biden’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have halted the release indefinitely.

The outcome of the case may ultimately decide whether the public ever hears recordings that played a role in Hur’s decision not to pursue criminal charges against Biden regarding classified documents. The recordings have attracted significant attention because Hur cited concerns about Biden’s memory when explaining why prosecution was not warranted.

Although the Justice Department previously made public recordings from Biden’s interviews with Hur, the materials at issue in this dispute involve separate discussions between Biden and Zwonitzer.

Hur’s 2024 report repeatedly cited Biden’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer. In the report, the special counsel characterized portions of the exchanges as “painfully slow” and noted instances in which Biden appeared to struggle with recalling events and conveying information. Those observations fueled debate over Biden’s cognitive fitness during a presidential election year.

The Heritage Foundation and its Oversight Project, led by Mike Howell, have spent more than two years attempting to obtain the recordings and transcripts through Freedom of Information Act requests.

Representatives of the Heritage Foundation have argued that the public deserves access to materials referenced extensively throughout Hur’s report. They contend that transparency is especially important because Hur relied on those recordings when explaining his decision not to file criminal charges.

Meanwhile, Biden has sought to prevent the release of recordings that critics argue could prove politically damaging.

After Judge Friedrich rejected Biden’s request for a preliminary injunction on Friday, Biden’s legal team quickly filed for emergency relief in an effort to maintain the current status of the records while the appeals process moves forward.

In their emergency filing, Biden’s attorneys argued that releasing the materials before appellate review would effectively resolve the dispute before higher courts could consider the underlying legal issues. They asserted that any privacy protections would be irreversibly lost once the recordings became public, rendering much of the appeal meaningless.

The filing further emphasized that the FOIA case has already remained active for more than two years. Biden’s lawyers argued there is no pressing public necessity to immediately disclose conversations that took place roughly a decade ago between Biden and his ghostwriter. They also pointed out that Biden is now a private citizen who neither holds public office nor is currently seeking one.

The Justice Department originally withheld both the recordings and substantial portions of the transcripts under various FOIA exemptions. Earlier this year, however, the department changed its position, concluding that the records could be released with appropriate redactions. Officials cited a substantial public interest in understanding evidence that Hur relied upon during his investigation.

Following the department’s announcement that it intended to release the recordings, Biden filed a lawsuit in May seeking to block disclosure. He argued that the audiotapes contain private conversations that should remain confidential and that releasing them would violate the Privacy Act.

Biden’s legal team further contended that the Justice Department’s decision represents both a violation of the Privacy Act and arbitrary agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Leading the legal challenge is Amy Jeffress, a partner at the Washington-based law firm Hecker Fink and a former national security official within the Justice Department. Jeffress has served as Biden’s primary attorney in the matter and signed the recent emergency filing requesting that disclosure be paused during the appeal.

Jeffress has also attracted attention because she is married to U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. Cooper recently ruled against the Trump administration in a prominent dispute involving the Kennedy Center. Some Trump allies and conservative commentators have cited the relationship between Cooper and Jeffress as a potential conflict of interest, though no formal finding has been made regarding the matter.