Home Federal judge orders White House to comply with Presidential Records Act after DOJ called the 1978 law unconstitutional byUSA -May 21, 2026 0 Breaking NewsMay 20, 2026 · U.S. PoliticsA federal judge on Wednesday dealt a major legal blow to the Trump administration, ordering White House staff and senior advisers to continue preserving presidential records under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) — a 1978 law enacted in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal.In a 54-page decision, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction finding the law "likely constitutional" — a direct rebuke of a legal memo the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) released last month arguing the PRA exceeded Congress' authority."On the merits, the Records Act is likely constitutional. It was validly enacted by Congress under the Property Clause because Congress may prospectively designate presidential records as federal property and then regulate that property," Judge Bates wrote.Ruling DateMay 20, 2026Takes effectMay 26, 2026Opinion length54 pagesLaw enacted1978What is the Presidential Records Act?Passed by Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the PRA establishes that all presidential records — including official communications, policy discussions, memoranda, emails, and text messages — are the property of the American public, not the sitting president. At the end of each administration, those records must be transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for preservation and eventual public access.Why did the DOJ call it unconstitutional?The Justice Department's OLC, led by T. Elliot Gaiser, issued a controversial memo arguing the PRA exceeds Congress' powers and infringes on the autonomy of the presidency — claiming that President Trump is not required to turn over his records at the end of his term. The administration's position raised immediate concerns that official government records could be destroyed, deleted, or withheld from future public scrutiny.The OLC's legal opinion relied on a "stark misreading" of Supreme Court precedent when it decided that Trump "need not further comply" with the Act. — Judge John D. BatesWho filed the lawsuit?Three organizations — the American Historical Association, government watchdog group American Oversight, and the Freedom of the Press Foundation — filed suit to block the DOJ's memo and compel White House compliance with the law. The groups argued the administration's stance created an immediate danger of permanent destruction of historically significant records.Who is covered by the injunction?The ruling applies to most White House staff and senior advisers — including Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, senior adviser Stephen Miller, and members of the National Security Council. Notably, President Trump and Vice President JD Vance are excluded from the injunction's direct requirements.Key compliance requirementsPreserve all presidential records, including those on personal devicesCirculate a copy of the court order to all covered employeesFile a compliance report with the court by May 28, 2026What happens next?The injunction takes effect on May 26, 2026. The ruling is a preliminary injunction, meaning the full legal battle is ongoing — the Trump administration could appeal or the case will proceed toward a final ruling. Transparency advocates have hailed the decision as a significant victory for democratic accountability, while the administration has said it remains committed to preserving "historically significant" records.Tags:Presidential Records ActTrump administrationDOJJudge BatesGovernment transparencyUS politics 2026 Facebook Twitter
