In a Monday morning ruling, the Department of Justice lost its bid to keep the Mar-a-Lago raid affidavit sealed, with the presiding judge calling the raid “unprecedented” and giving the DOJ until later this week to offer redactions.

The ruling, which was expected but not formally handed down until today, takes note of the historical nature of the raid of a former President’s home.

“Particularly given the intense public and historical interest in an unprecedented search of a former President’s residence,” Judge Bruce Reinhart wrote, “the Government has not yet shown that these administrative concerns are sufficient to justify sealing.”

Fox News has more:

Reinhart said he has given the Justice Department an “opportunity to propose redaction,” something he granted last week, giving the government a deadline of Thursday, Aug. 25 at noon.

“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that by the deadline, the Government shall file under seal a submission addressing possible redactions and providing any additional evidence or legal argument that the Government believes relevant to the pending Motions to Unseal,” the motion states.

Reinhart, during a highly anticipated hearing in the West Palm Beach Division of Florida last Thursday, said that the entire affidavit should not be kept under seal, despite the Justice Department’s argument that the release would jeopardize future steps in the investigation and provide a “roadmap” for the probe.

Now, it’s still likely that the Justice Department’s redactions could render what is released meaningless, but the ruling is a victory in attempting to expose the rationale behind the raid. There have been multiple reports as to what the FBI was looking for, and Republicans have been demanding more transparency over the unprecedented nature of the raid.

If the Justice Department submits redactions that the judge feels aren’t proper, he will offer his own redactions. However, the DOJ can object to the judge’s determination of what should or shouldn’t be redacted. The FBI says they are worried that the details of their investigation becoming public will affect their investigation, particularly where interviewing persons of interest are concerned.