Donald Trump v. Bennie Thompson, 20 F.4th 10

Background:

On January 6, 2021 a violent assault on the U.S. Capitol interrupted Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral vote.
The House created the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack and requested presidential records from the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act (PRA).
Former President Trump asserted the presidential communications (executive) privilege over a subset of records in the Archivist’s first three tranches.
President Biden reviewed those tranches and determined that invoking executive privilege was not in the interests of the United States, directing the Archivist to release the records to the Committee.
Trump sued and sought a preliminary injunction to block disclosure; the district court denied that relief, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed on an expedited appeal as to the tranches for which Biden declined to assert privilege.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a court enjoin disclosure of former President’s presidential records when the incumbent President declines to assert executive privilege?	Trump: Yes; a former President may assert privilege and courts must review claims.	Biden/Committee: Incumbent’s considered decision not to assert privilege is authoritative and weighs heavily; courts should not override.	Court: No injunction; Biden’s judgment and interbranch accommodation carry decisive weight and Trump failed to show likelihood of success.
Does the Committee have a legitimate legislative purpose for requesting these records?	Trump: The request lacks a valid legislative purpose and is effectively law enforcement/partisan.	Committee: Investigating January 6 is a core legislative function with prospective remedial legislation possible.	Court: Yes; the Committee’s purpose is legislative and satisfies PRA and Mazars-related standards.
Must the court perform document-by-document in camera review to assess privilege before disclosure?	Trump: Yes; courts must examine each document to determine privilege.	Biden/Committee: Biden concedes the materials qualify as presidential communications but has chosen not to assert privilege; document-by-document review is unnecessary.	Court: No; Trump failed to identify particularized harms or specific privileged content to justify in camera review.
Do other preliminary-injunction factors (irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest) favor Trump?	Trump: Disclosure will chill future presidential communications and harm the Presidency; irreparable harm exists.	Biden/Committee: Biden found disclosure is in the national interest; withholding would impede urgent congressional investigation and public interest.	Court: No; Trump did not show irreparable harm, and the balance of equities and public interest favor disclosure.

Key Cases Cited

Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) (former Presidents may assert privilege; incumbent President best positioned to assess Executive Branch needs)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (presidential communications privilege is qualified and yields to a demonstrated need)
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019 (2020) (framework for evaluating congressional subpoenas implicating the President)
McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) (Congress’s investigative power is ancillary to legislative function)
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957) (limits on congressional investigations; must be related to legislation)
Senate Select Comm. on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (subpoenaed evidence must be demonstrably critical to committee functions)
In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (scope of presidential communications privilege)
Public Citizen v. Burke, 843 F.2d 1473 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (incumbent President must consider former President’s privilege claims under PRA)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunction)