WASHINGTON
A federal appeals court in Washington heard arguments on Friday in a case that asks a deceptively simple question: when a president creates papers in the White House, who do they belong to — the president, or the public? NPR reported, in coverage carried by WAMC and WCMU public radio on Friday morning, that the Justice Department is asking the courts to invalidate the Presidential Records Act, the 1978 law that has treated presidential records as the property of the American people for nearly half a century. According to NPR's reporting, administration lawyers argued that papers created in the White House belong to President Donald Trump personally.
For most of the country's history, the default ran the other way. As NPR reported, for roughly 200 years presidents largely decided for themselves what to do with their papers when they left office — keeping them, donating them, or in some cases destroying them. That arrangement ended after Watergate. The bitter disputes over Richard Nixon's tapes and papers convinced Congress that a president's records were too important to be treated as personal property, and in 1978 lawmakers passed the Presidential Records Act. Under the law, presidential records belong to the United States, are managed by the National Archives, and become available to the public on a set timetable. NPR reported that every president since the law took effect complied with it — until this year.
The administration's argument
Six months ago, according to NPR's reporting, the Justice Department moved to invalidate the Act, and Friday's hearing put that position before a federal appeals panel in Washington. The administration's position, as NPR described it, is that the Constitution gives the president control over the records of his own presidency, and that Congress overstepped when it claimed them for the public. White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis, in comments reported by NPR, called the Act unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers. That is the heart of the government's case: the presidency, its lawyers argue, cannot function if a statute can reach into the Oval Office and declare its paperwork public property.
The administration is not alone in that view. NPR reported that conservative lawyer Michael Edney, speaking in a Federalist Society webinar, called the law a post-Watergate overreach — in his characterization, an overbroad incursion into executive prerogatives born of the politics of that era. Supporters of that argument say the Act was written in reaction to one president's misconduct and swept far beyond what the Constitution allows, burdening every president since with a rule Congress had no power to impose.
The other side of the ledger
Defenders of the law answer that the post-Watergate origin is precisely the point. The Nixon fight showed what happens when a president treats the documentary record of his administration as a personal asset to bargain over, withhold or destroy. The Presidential Records Act, in their telling, settled the question the way Congress settles many questions after a scandal: by writing the public's ownership into law. Every president from Ronald Reagan onward governed under the Act, turned records over to the Archives, and managed — which defenders offer as practical proof that the law does not cripple the office. The counterargument, as it was framed in Friday's hearing coverage, is that what is at stake is not any one box of papers but the historical record itself: historians, journalists and ordinary citizens eventually read presidential records because the law guarantees those records survive and belong to everyone.
There is also recent history hanging over the courtroom. As NPR noted in its reporting, Trump was previously indicted over allegedly storing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving office. A judge dismissed that case on grounds related to the special prosecutor's appointment, and the Justice Department dropped the matter after Trump's reelection. The current case is legally distinct — it is a civil and constitutional fight over the statute itself rather than a criminal case about particular documents — but the earlier episode explains why the question of who owns presidential papers carries such political charge, and why both sides are treating a records law like a heavyweight bout.
What happens next
Friday's arguments were one step, not the finish line. The appeals panel will rule in the coming months, and NPR reported that the case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court — a destination that has looked likely since the Justice Department first moved against the Act, given that the dispute pits a federal statute directly against a president's claimed constitutional authority. If the courts side with the administration, nearly fifty years of records practice would be unwound, and future presidents would again decide for themselves what happens to their papers. If the Act survives, the post-Watergate settlement holds for another generation. Either way, the answer will be written into history — the only question is who gets to keep the draft.
.jpg){kind=link}