A coalition of historians and a government watchdog filed a lawsuit in Washington on Monday asking a federal court to reaffirm the legality of the Presidential Records Act and to bar federal agencies from treating a recent Justice Department memo as a basis for disregarding the statute.
The plaintiffs - the American Historical Association and American Oversight - requested that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declare the nearly 50-year-old law lawful and enjoin agencies from relying on the Office of Legal Counsel memo issued on April 1 that concluded the law is unconstitutional.
The complaint asks the court for an injunction that would require President Donald Trump to follow the records-preservation requirements after he leaves office. "This case is about the preservation of records that document our nation’s history, and whether the American people are able to access and learn from that history," the suit states.
In a written statement, the White House said: "President Trump is committed to preserving records from his historic Administration and he will maintain a rigorous records retention program."
Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, criticized the Justice Department position in a statement, asserting the department is advancing "a sweeping view of presidential power that would hand control of those records to the White House - a position the Supreme Court has already rejected."
The Presidential Records Act of 1978 establishes rules for the treatment and custody of records created or received by a president and his staff, including provisions governing when certain materials may be disposed of. Under the statute, presidential records are transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration at the conclusion of an administration.
The Office of Legal Counsel memo, signed by T. Elliot Gaiser, who was appointed by President Trump to lead the office, concluded the law intrudes on the "independence and autonomy" of the executive branch and that a president may disregard the statute as unconstitutional. The memo stated the records law "exceeds any preservation power because Congress cannot preserve presidential records merely for the sake of posterity."
The American Historical Association and American Oversight contend the OLC opinion conflicts with a 1977 Supreme Court decision that upheld a prior presidential records preservation measure, and argue that the executive branch lacks the authority to nullify that judicial determination. Their complaint notes that no prior presidential administration of either party - including the first Trump administration - had questioned the law's constitutionality since it was enacted.
The case is styled American Historical Association et al v. Donald Trump et al and is docketed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as No. 1:26-cv-01169. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs are Daniel Jacobson of Jacobson Lawyers Group and Loree Stark of American Oversight. There were no appearances listed yet for the defendants.
Context and implications
The lawsuit challenges the Justice Department's recent legal opinion and seeks a judicial declaration that would prevent federal agencies from relying on that opinion to justify noncompliance with the Presidential Records Act. The plaintiffs are pursuing both declaratory and injunctive relief to secure the long-standing statutory regime for the preservation and transfer of presidential records to the National Archives.
How the court resolves the questions presented could determine whether the executive branch can unilaterally disregard statutory preservation requirements or whether the Presidential Records Act will continue to govern the custody and management of presidential records at the end of an administration.
Case: American Historical Association et al v. Donald Trump et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:26-cv-01169.