Judge Bates Rules Presidential Records Act Unconstitutional (2026)

It was a ruling that brought everything in Washington to a halt.

On May 20, 2020, John D. Bates, a federal district judge appointed by George W. Bush, ruled on the Presidential Records Act with an extensive decision that sent waves of confusion through the West Wing and the legal community.

The verdict was straightforward. The White House was to be bound by the law. The Trump administration’s Department of Justice spent weeks arguing that a 48-year-old federal statute, one passed in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in an attempt to prevent this type of executive overstepping, was lawless. Judge Bates didn’t think so. And he was adamant.

This is a battle, more than anything else, over the right of a president to control the narratives of his or her history. Right now, the answer is the people.

What Is the Presidential Records Act, and Why Does It Matter?

To appreciate the significance of this ruling, you need to examine the origins of the Presidential Records Act and what it entails.

Congress passed the Presidential Records Act of 1978 in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and the resulting protracted litigation establishing the destination of President Nixon’s recordings and documents. In the absence of this statute, documents created by the president were fully controlled by that president, including their destruction, sale, and retention as his/her/their private documents.

The Watergate-related legislation, however, brought about that change.

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) articulated that congressional documents were to be considered the property of the public, to be preserved and later transferred to the National Archives. Upon transfer, the documents become publicly available after the National Archives has completed its appraisal. The documents made available will be congressional records, including correspondence, supporting documentation, and records that are created as a result of the president’s official activities and decisions.

For almost fifty years, this law remained unchallenged, on constitutional grounds, in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Trump’s first administration also maintained the position, in litigation, that the various offices and agencies of the White House were obligated to the PRA.

This all changed on April 1, 2026.

The DOJ’s Bombshell: The Presidential Records Act Is Unconstitutional

On April 1, 2026, Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser released a lengthy legal memorandum stating that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) is unconstitutional.

According to the OLC’s justification, the PRA “aggrandizes the Legislative Branch at the expense of Constitutional independence of the Executive Branch,” and claimed the statute was “untethered from any legitimate, identifiable, and substantiated legislative purpose.” Perhaps most controversially, the memo concluded that President Trump “need not further comply” with the PRA, and by extension, the White House would be free to treat government records as personal records.

Legal experts and courts have reason to be concerned because OLC opinions are treated as legally binding within the Executive. The memo was particularly worrisome for advocates of transparency since there was no legislative obstacle preventing the National Archives from fully abandoning the PRA.

The memo’s poor drafting and overreach resulted in the legal abrogation of many statutory obligations to the National Archives. The White House Counsel’s Office then drafted internal legal guidance to White House staff that said text message records of official White House business would be preserved only when retained on personal devices. This guidance used a “uniquely” definable standard to text message records of official business, which meant that they would be lost. The guidance resulted in the loss of many records of official business.

The guidance also told employees that even text messages that fell under these conditions did not have to be archived if employees considered them to be “ministerial” acts or office details. Instead of keeping the text messages as required by the law, they were told to email or memo the text messages.

In summary, the Trump administration more or less instructed its staff that the Presidential Records Act did not apply to them.

The Lawsuit: Historians and Watchdog Groups Fight Back

They acted quickly.

In early April 2026, American Oversight and the American Historical Association, followed by some other organizations, went to court to challenge the OLC memo and requested that the court declare the Presidential Records Act (PRA) to be valid and that it should compel the relevant State authorities to obey the federal law. On September 9, 2026, the lawsuit was expanded to include Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

The complaint was extremely critical and asserted that the administration believed that “the President is legally free to destroy records of his official government conduct, or even spirit away the records for his own future personal use.” The complaint stated that the OLC opinion possibly “may replace, by the courts, a radical attempt to destroy an Act of Congress” and that this opinion represents “the defiance to disregard and aim at destroying an Act of Congress” that has governed records of the Presidents for the last fifty years, and that OLC was using “almost no judicial authority.”

The filing specifically pointed out that the Supreme Court had already settled/finalized the core issue 50 years ago in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, and the plaintiffs believed that the OLC Memo had ignored this Judicial precedent.

The groups requested the court to issue an emergency injunctive relief, stating that there was a great risk of the permanent loss of records. Judge Bates agreed to this.

The Ruling: Judge Bates Delivers a 54-Page Rebuke

On May 20, 2026, Judge John D. Bates became the first to say the DOJ’s argument was unconstitutional, while also being the first to grant the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, all while wrapping up a 54-page legal treatise on the matter.

The Core Legal Finding: Congress Has the Power

The question before the court, however, was whether Congress could create the Presidential Records Act. The DOJ argued it couldn’t. Judge Bates was more than certain that it could.

“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,” Bates wrote in the ruling.

Bates went as far as to say the Constitution, history, and Supreme Court rulings all aligned in favor of Congress and against the Administration. Bates states, “The original public meaning of the text of the Constitution, canons of interpretation, Supreme Court precedent, general principles of property law, and almost 50 years of practice confirm that Congress has the enumerated power to regulate presidential records under the Property Clause.”

The judge went so far as to say the OLC misread precedent in thinking that Trump, the former president, was not required to comply with the Act.

The “Substantial Risk” Finding

Bates also determined a few things beyond the question of constitutionality. He found that plaintiffs had substantiated a case that a “substantial risk” of the White House acting in violation of the law existed. Such a finding justified the need for extraordinary injunctive relief.

Judge Bates rejected the White House’s defense that informal text exchanges need not be stored. He stated that the White House cannot make that determination; it is up to Congress. He added that while messages on official White House devices may be stored automatically, those sent using personal devices are not, and under statute, they may be deemed official records if they involve government business and/or the affairs of government decision-making.

What the Ruling Requires

The injunction orders compliance with the PRA for the Office of the President, the NSC, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Service, and all of the President’s advisors. Compliance means those entities will keep all records of the President and the Vice President, will not create text or other ephemeral records of the President or the Vice President (or send such records), unless they create a text or other ephemeral record in an official account and preserve the record(s), and will not create or keep records retention policies that do not comply with the PRA. Additionally, the Defendants will send a copy of the injunction to all employees to whom the injunction applies and will submit a notice to the Court no later than May 28, 2026.

With the injunction coming into effect at 9:00 AM on May 26, 2026, the administration is given a limited time to prepare for this requirement.

Who Is, and Isn’t, Covered

Required to comply with Bates’ order are White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the National Security Council, Council of Economic Advisers, and employees of the Executive Office of the President.

Bates pointed out that his order was not targeting former President Donald Trump or current Vice President JD Vance, but rather White House staff. The judge also refused to impose any limitations on the National Archives or the National Archives’ head, the Justice Department, or the attorney general.

What the Judge Said About Watergate and History

Bates included some of the most memorable passages in his 54-page opinion, with some direct references to history and why it is dangerous to forget it.

Bates wrote, “To adopt the government’s position that the Act is unconstitutional would disable Congress and future Presidents from reflecting on experience in defiance of the very words that are etched in the National Archives Building in Washington.”

“The presidency is a singularly important institution that gravity does not free it from modest constraint,” wrote the judge. This line will likely be used in legal documents and congressional testimonies for some time.

“It is not for this Court, the Office of Legal Counsel, or the White House to second-guess Congress’s lawful determination made pursuant to at least two different enumerated powers that citizens ought eventually to have access to these records of presidential activities carried out in their name,” wrote Bates.

The Reactions: Watchdog Groups Cheer, Government May Appeal

The groups that initiated the lawsuit reacted promptly and positively.

Chioma Chukwu, Head of American Oversight, stated that the lawsuit affirmed the legitimacy of the Presidential Records Act and what Trump tried to do to federal law was completely unconstitutional. She referenced the danger the government is attempting to create, where there is no law as signed by Donald Trump to believe in, and where federal law is replaced by presidential discretion.

Donald Sherman, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, stated that evidence of Trump and his administration acting in violation of federal law to destroy records in the custody of the administration and to treat them as personal records is not in the custody of the administration and is now considered hoarded personal records.

The Trump government has been known to appeal as many cases as possible in order to address decisions made by other courts that oppose their policies. The outcome of this case is crucial and will determine the position of the higher courts and whether they will grant the Trump government power to go beyond Presidential constraints. Legal experts expect an appeal to be made to the circuit courts.

Why This Ruling Goes Far Beyond Records Management

It seems easy to constrain the bounds of this debate to a conversation on correct or incorrect methods of preserving documents. However, this is not the case.

Fundamentally, this debate centers on the checks and balances of the Executive Branch vs. the American people. Can a sitting Executive essentially say, “I’m above the law; I can do whatever I want, and the laws of accountability and transparency do not apply to me”?

The Presidential Records Act provides for the preservation of government documents. Without this legislation, future oversight, research, and historical works relating to government and policy decisions would be basically impossible. And once those government records are lost or left unpreserved, that knowledge is lost as well.

The OLC memo’s position extended well past claims of poor drafting and onerous burdens in some sections of the PRA. It claimed a total absence of Congressional authority to enact the provisions and that records of a sitting President, by virtue of the Constitution, were the personal property of the President. If this position were endorsed by a court, the pre-Watergate policies allowing presidents to destroy and/or monopolize the historical records of their administration would be upheld.

Judge Bates conceived of a totally different future.

The court did not find evidence that the law was broken intentionally; however, it did state that measures must be implemented to avoid the eradication or loss of records. This ruling was intended to be strong enough to ensure the needed action is taken, but was measured to allow an appeal, with the appropriate grounding to be constitutionally correct.

Key Timeline: How We Got Here

Conclusion

Judge John Bates’ ruling on the Presidential Records Act in 2026 is more than a favorable outcome for those who advocate transparency for government actions. The ruling makes the case in 54 pages that accountability for the executive is not optional, nor is the public’s right to know how the government functions. It also rebukes the memo from the Department of Justice that urges a disregard for several decades of established practice and precedent.

It remains to be seen if the ruling will ultimately survive an appeal. The Trump administration has been willing to continue the legal fight, however and whenever possible, and the existing Supreme Court has granted a (far too) wide and expansive authority to the Executive Branch.

For the time being, history is protected. The White House has the legal obligation to maintain the documents and official communications, even private messages, of White House staff. There is a legal obligation, with a deadline, to comply by May 26. The words engraved on the walls of the National Archives, which Judge Bates also cited in his ruling, are still of great importance and relevant to the case ruling.

“The past is never past.”

FAQs

Q: What did Judge Bates rule in the Presidential Records Act case?

On May 20, 2026, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates published a 54-page preliminary injunction ruling that the majority of White House employees must follow the Presidential Records Act. He stated the 1978 Act was “likely to be constitutional” under the authority of the Property Clause of Congress, in an almost direct refutation of a DOJ Office of Legal Counsel ruling that stated the Act was unconstitutional, and sought to justify President Trump’s noncompliance with the Act.

Q: What is the Presidential Records Act?

The Presidential Records Act, instituted in 1978, is a federal law that required legislative action following the Watergate Break-In. This act gave the public ownership of the records of the president and mandated the preservation and transfer of all records about the president’s decision-making and actions, and all communications and activities of the executive branch to the National Archives. These records will be available to the public.

Q: Why did the DOJ say the Presidential Records Act was unconstitutional?

An April 1, 2026, memo claimed the PRA “aggrandizes the Legislative Branch” and does so “at the expense of the constitutional independence” of the Executive, and is “untethered from any valid and identifiable legislative purpose.” In layman’s terms, the memo argued former President Trump “need not further comply” with the PRA. Judge Bates said the argument relied on a “stark misreading” of Supreme Court precedent.

Q: Who must comply with Judge Bates’ injunction?

The injunction applies to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the National Security Council, the Council of Economic Advisers, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and every staff member of the Executive Office of the President. President Trump and Vice President JD Vance are excluded from the order.

Q: What does the ruling require the White House to do?

By May 28, 2026, the White House is required to maintain all presidential and vice presidential records as defined by the PRA, avoid making or sending official records via texting or other ephemeral messaging apps without CCing an official preservation account, update records retention policies to align with the law, distribute the order to affected employees, and submit a notice of compliance to the court.

Q: When does the injunction take effect?

The injunction begins at 9:00 EST on May 26, 2026.

Q: Will the Trump administration appeal the ruling?

Almost all legal experts think the administration will appeal the ruling. The government generally appeals most unfavorable lower court decisions, and, likely, the constitutional issues in this case will eventually be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Q: Who brought the lawsuit against the White House?

American Oversight, the American Historical Association, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the Freedom of the Press Foundation focused on the DOJ memo, stating that it presented the possibility of the clandestine destruction or unlawful violation of government records retention.

Stay on Top of Every Major Ruling With USA Times Square

The ruling on the Presidential Records Act in 2026 is likely to be one of the biggest legal precedents. Follow the ongoing battles and obstacles now, USA Times Square, will provide you with the most detailed information on what is influencing and shaping the current democracy of the United States, unlike short news updates that provide little to no context.

👉 Follow USA Times Square to be the first to know when the Supreme Court chimes in, when the appeal is filed, and when we continue to cover this historic case.

The current events and history that are being formed now truly deserve to be looked back on.