Trump Presidential Records: Appeals Court Skeptical

The trump presidential records fight reached a federal appeals court on Friday, where a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit appeared skeptical of the Justice Department’s effort to invalidate the law that keeps White House papers in public hands.

DOJ attorney John Bailey argued that the Presidential Records Act exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority and violates the separation of powers by giving the United States “complete ownership, possession, and control” of records created by the president and his staff. The department said in an April memo that the law “unconstitutionally intrudes on the independence and autonomy” of the executive branch and could chill advisers from giving the president candid advice.

Judges Push Back

Judge Patricia Millett pressed Bailey on what would replace the records regime if the administration prevails. “You want to go from one regime to zero,” she said during the two-hour hearing, asking how future presidents would receive critical national security information during transitions if no preservation law existed.

Bailey suggested Congress could craft a narrower, more tailored statute but declined to draw clear lines about what requirements would pass constitutional muster. Judges Millett, Cornelia “Nina” Pillard, and Justin Walker — two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee — all questioned the department’s lawyer.

What’s at Stake

The Presidential Records Act was passed in 1978 in response to the Watergate scandal and the Nixon records dispute. For roughly two centuries before it, presidents decided for themselves what to do with their papers; every president since 1978 has complied with the law until this year. A White House spokeswoman, Lauren Bis, called the act “unconstitutional and a clear violation of the separation of powers.”

The plaintiffs — the American Historical Association and the watchdog group American Oversight — won an order from Judge John Bates requiring White House officials to preserve records while the case proceeds. They are backed by friend-of-the-court briefs from 106 members of Congress, 25 former senior national security officials, and seven former National Archives leaders. The case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

Source: Politico