The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath.

Can either of you think of any situation in which a relatively new judge blows a case this badly

in a fashion that the Court of Appeals, any Court of Appeals, turns around and says,

this clearly, this loudly, you know, you really have to stop acting like this.

Because I can't.

I'm Benjamin Wittis and this is the LawFair podcast December 5, 2022.

On Thursday afternoon, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling

in the amusingly captioned case, Trump V United States of America.

The three-judge panel vacated, district judge Eileen Cannon's order,

appointing a special master to review the material seized at Mar-a-Lago by the Justice Department.

And it ruled in scathing language that she had no authority to entertain the case at all.

To go over it all in front of a live audience on Twitter spaces,

Natalie Orpet, LawFair executive editor, and Scott R. Anderson, our senior editor,

joined me in the virtual jungle studio.

We went through the decision, page by page.

We talked about whether things would speed up now that Judge Cannon's ruling is out of the way.

And we talked about what kind of message the 11th Circuit is sending to a new judge

...