 |
|
No. Try again
Posted on: September 15, 2022 at 17:24:44 CT
Spanky KU
Posts:
141009
Member For:
20.21 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
2
https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/trump-and-toothless-presidential-records-act
The PRA has been seldom litigated, but courts have decided that the law allows for only narrow judicial review of a President’s recordkeeping practices. In Armstrong v. Bush (Armstrong I), the D.C. Circuit found that review of a President’s preservation guidelines was unavailable under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) because the President is not an executive agency. 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991).But in Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President (Armstrong II), the D.C. Circuit held that courts may“review guidelines outlining what is, and what is not, a ‘presidential record’ under the terms of the PRA.”1 F.3d 1274, 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Based on those rulings, the D.C. District Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case of CREW v. Trump. The court reasoned that mandamus relief (i.e. a court order) is available only under extraordinary circumstances, and that a President’s recordkeeping duties under the PRA are too discretionary to be enforced by court order. In short, the court found that judges may review the classification of existing records, but a court may not direct the President to affirmatively create and preserve particular records under the PRA.
http://tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=18292675
Edited by Spanky at 17:27:25 on 09/15/22
The PRA has been seldom litigated, but courts have decided that the law allows for only narrow judicial review of a President’s recordkeeping practices. In Armstrong v. Bush (Armstrong I), the D.C. Circuit found that review of a President’s preservation guidelines was unavailable under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) because the President is not an executive agency. 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991).But in Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President (Armstrong II), the D.C. Circuit held that courts may“review guidelines outlining what is, and what is not, a ‘presidential record’ under the terms of the PRA.”1 F.3d 1274, 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Based on those rulings, the D.C. District Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case of CREW v. Trump. The court reasoned that mandamus relief (i.e. a court order) is available only under extraordinary circumstances, and that a President’s recordkeeping duties under the PRA are too discretionary to be enforced by court order. In short, the court found that judges may review the classification of existing records, but a court may not direct the President to affirmatively create and preserve particular records under the PRA.
http://tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=18292675
Edited by Spanky at 17:27:25 on 09/15/22
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
No. Try again - Spanky KU - 9/15 17:24:44