Appeals Court Questions Justice Dept. Claim that Trump Owns White House Records
- Trump's DOJ lawyers told DC appeals court that the Presidential Records Act unconstitutionally 'intrudes' on the presidency—which historian groups say is just them trying to shred the evidence on the way out.
- Government attorney John Bailey argued the 1978 law is 'obsolete' because a future president might post old emails to embarrass a predecessor—because nothing says 'executive privilege' like panicking about your own paper trail.
- Judge Cornelia Pillard snapped back that this 'partisan view' treats separation of powers as protecting one president, not the office—which is roughly the legal equivalent of calling the argument 'dumb.'
- The PRA has governed record-keeping since Nixon's 'I’m not a crook' era, and Trump's team wants the modern equivalent of burning the tapes before the moving van arrives.
- A Supreme Court fight looms, because of course it does—Trump can’t leave a room without making the Constitution do the walk of shame.
Brief Summary
Three appeals judges spent Friday afternoon listening to a Trump-era lawyer argue that the Presidential Records Act—a law so old it predates Windows 95—is an unconstitutional outrage because presidents might someday have their feelings hurt by a public records request. The DOJ’s John Bailey pleaded that the 1978 statute is hopelessly obsolete and a threat to the 'polarized times' we live in, which is rich from an administration that treats paper trails like toxic waste. Judge Cornelia Pillard replied with the kind of judicial smackdown that makes this hearing a must-watch for anyone who enjoys watching legal arguments bleed out: The law isn't about protecting any one president but the institution, and treating it as personal property is basically a constitutional striptease. The Trump team wants to blow up the PRA so potentially embarrassing documents—the kind archives are built for—can be treated like personal keepsakes and vanish into a golden elevator. The case is likely heading to the Supreme Court, as if that'd do anything but make the docket smell like scorched earth.
Why This Matters
Here's the part that should make your blood run cold: The PRA is the reason the 'Twitter-fingers' of every president—Trump included—are legally the government's property, not a private collection of rage tweets. If a court buys this nonsense, any future president could literally treat the White House like a garage sale: 'This unconstitutional stain on the presidency? Five bucks, take it!' That means the 2020s could go down in history as the year we stopped keeping receipts because the guy holding the pen decided history is a suggestion. Ignore this at your own peril, because the next time a president picks a fight with a subpoena, the only thing standing between the truth and a bonfire is a law Trump’s lawyers called too 'partisan' to obey.