一名联邦法官命令白宫遵循总统记录法案，拒绝司法部的最近的意见水门事件时期的法律是违宪的。
美国地区法官约翰·贝茨裁定，这项几十年来确保总统离任后总统记录公开的法律可能符合宪法，一群历史学家认为提起诉讼成功地表明白宫有不遵守法律的“重大风险”。
贝茨写道:“总而言之，宪法文本的原始公共含义、解释原则、最高法院判例、财产法的一般原则以及近50年的实践证明，国会有权根据财产条款监管总统记录。”
在一份54页的裁决中，引用了乔治·奥威尔和威廉·莎士比亚的话，贝茨法官强调了总统记录公开的重要性。
“接受政府的立场，认为该法案违宪，将使国会和未来的总统无法反思经验，无视华盛顿国家档案馆大楼上镌刻的一句话:“过去的只是序幕，”他写道。
贝茨法官要求特朗普政府在5月26日之前让他的命令生效。
助理司法部长t·埃利奥特·盖瑟(T. Elliot Gaiser)拒绝了水门事件后制定的一项长达几十年的确保保存总统记录的法律，他在上个月表示，《总统记录法》是违宪的，“与任何有效和可识别的立法目的无关”。
“PRA超越了监督权，因为它没有明确有效的立法目的。它超越了任何保存权力，因为国会不能仅仅为了后代保存总统记录，”DOJ 52页的意见书说。
在他的第一个任期结束后，特朗普被指控违反《总统记录法》，在他的Mar-a-Lago庄园储存了几箱敏感的总统记录。他被指控涉嫌保留机密信息和妨碍司法公正，尽管该案因美国地方法官艾琳·坎农对特别顾问杰克·史密斯的任命表示担忧而被驳回。
一旦总统离任，PRA将国家档案和记录管理局置于总统及其工作人员在履行职责过程中创建的官方记录的控制之下，包括电子邮件、电话记录和其他文件材料。
Judge orders Trump administration to comply with Presidential Records Act
A federal judge is ordering the White House to follow the Presidential Records Act, rejecting the Department of Justice'srecent opinionthat the Watergate-era law is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that the law -- which for decades ensured that presidential records become public after a president leaves office -- is likely constitutional and that a group of historians thatbrought suitsuccessfully showed there is a "substantial risk" that the White House is not complying with the law.
"In sum, the original public meaning of the text of the Constitution, canons of interpretation, Supreme Court precedent, general principles of property law, and almost 50 years of practice confirm that Congress has the enumerated power to regulate presidential records under the Property Clause," Bates wrote.
In a 54-page ruling that invoked the words of George Orwell and William Shakespeare, Judge Bates emphasized the importance of presidential records becoming public.
"To adopt the government's position that the Act is unconstitutional would disable Congress and future Presidents from reflecting on experience, in defiance of the very words engraved on the National Archives Building in Washington: 'What is past is prologue,'" he wrote.
Judge Bates gave the Trump administration until May 26 for his order to take effect.
Rejecting a decades-old law enacted after the Watergate scandal to ensure the preservation of presidential records, Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser stated last month that the Presidential Records Act was unconstitutional and "untethered from any valid and identifiable legislative purpose."
"The PRA exceeds the oversight power because it serves no identifiable and valid legislative purpose. It exceeds any preservation power because Congress cannot preserve presidential records merely for the sake of posterity," the DOJ's 52-page opinion said.
After his first term in office, Trump was accused of violating the Presidential Records Act by storing boxes of sensitive presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate. He was indicted for allegedlyretaining classified informationand obstructing justice, though the case was dismissed over U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's concerns about the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith.
The PRA places the National Archives and Records Administration in control of the official records -- including emails, phone records, and other documentary material created by the president and his staff in the course of their duties -- once the president leaves office.
