Trump v. Thompson
Civil Action No. 2021-2769
| D.D.C. | Nov 9, 2021Background
- On January 6, 2021, a violent breach of the U.S. Capitol interrupted the electoral vote count; Congress created a House Select Committee (H.R. 503) to investigate causes and recommend reforms.
- On August 25, 2021, the Select Committee issued a Presidential Records Act (PRA) request to NARA for Presidential records relating to January 6, related rallies, planning, communications, and actions by the President and advisors.
- NARA notified former President Trump and the incumbent; Trump asserted executive privilege over a subset of records and a protective claim as to others. President Biden declined to assert or uphold those privilege claims and instructed the Archivist to produce the records absent a court order.
- Trump filed suit and moved for a preliminary injunction to block NARA/Archivist and the Committee from producing or using the requested records. The court heard argument on an accelerated schedule.
- The court applied the preliminary-injunction standard (likelihood of success on the merits; irreparable harm; balance of equities; public interest) and conducted legal analysis of executive privilege, the PRA, and Congress’s investigatory power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope and enforceability of executive privilege asserted by a former President | Trump: his presidential communications and deliberative- process privilege survive his term and bind disclosure; he can block production. | Defendants: privilege protects the office/institution; the incumbent President is best positioned to weigh executive-branch interests and may decline to uphold a former President's claim. | Court: incumbent President's determination outweighs former President's claim; will not substitute judicial review or conduct in camera document-by-document review. |
| Constitutionality of the Presidential Records Act (PRA) as applied | Trump: PRA infringes his constitutional rights by allowing compelled disclosure despite privilege. | Defendants: PRA provides a constitutionally permissible framework (incumbent review, limited categories); consistent with Nixon v. GSA. | Court: PRA constitutional; its procedures (including incumbent review) comport with separation-of-powers principles. |
| Validity and scope of Select Committee's PRA requests / Congress's legislative power | Trump: requests are overbroad, lack a specific legislative purpose, and exceed Congress’s constitutional inquiry power. | Defendants: requests are tied to H.R. 503’s legitimate legislative aims (investigate Jan 6 causes, propose reforms); Congress’ investigatory power is broad and deferential. | Court: requests serve valid legislative purposes; applied Mazars factors (and found them satisfied); production permissible. |
| Entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief (irreparable harm; public interest; equities) | Trump: disclosure will cause irreparable harm by chilling candid presidential advice and risking inadvertent release of privileged material. | Defendants: no cognizable irreparable harm—incumbent waived privilege, historical waivers exist, PRA review procedures and NARA accommodations mitigate risk; public interest favors disclosure. | Court: Trump failed to show likely irreparable harm or likelihood of success on merits; balance of equities and public interest favor production; injunction denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (recognizes presidential communications privilege but holds it is not absolute)
- Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (1977) (former President's privilege survives tenure but incumbent's position carries substantial weight)
- Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019 (2020) (articulates multi-factor approach for congressional subpoenas implicating the President)
- McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) (Congressional power to investigate and obtain information in aid of legislation)
- Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957) (limits on congressional inquiries; investigations must serve a legitimate legislative purpose)
- Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) (judicial deference to Congress’s investigatory functions)
- Senate Select Comm. on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (presidential conversations presumptively privileged; public-need standard to overcome privilege)