The Daily Fuckup

A federal judge has put the White House’s records overhaul on hold, but only in part. On May 20, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates granted a preliminary injunction in the consolidated Presidential Records Act cases, concluding that the statute is likely constitutional and that the government cannot rely on a new Justice Department opinion and White House guidance to sidestep it. The opinion was filed the same day and runs 54 pages. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2026cv01402/291744/15/0.pdf))

The relief is narrower than a blanket shutdown. Bates did not enjoin President Trump or Vice President JD Vance directly. And he denied preliminary-injunction relief as to the National Archives and Records Administration, the Archivist, the Justice Department, and the attorney general. The injunction instead reaches the remaining federal defendants, who are barred from treating the Presidential Records Act as unconstitutional or acting on the 2026 records guidance that followed the Justice Department’s legal opinion. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2026cv01402/291744/15/0.pdf))

The dispute started with a sharp break from the government’s longstanding practice under the law. At the White House Counsel’s request, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an April 1, 2026 opinion saying the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional. The next day, White House Counsel David Warrington sent guidance to Executive Office of the President staff explaining how records would be handled in light of that opinion. Bates said that approach raised a serious legal problem because Congress validly enacted the statute and the executive branch could not erase it with its own memo. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2026cv01402/291744/15/0.pdf))

Bates’ opinion says the act governs materials created or received by the president, vice president, their immediate staffs and advisers in their offices when those materials relate to official duties. It also says plaintiffs showed a substantial risk that the government was no longer fully complying with the law in several categories, including records made on personal devices, records created by the president or vice president themselves, and records the president discards. The practical effect, for now, is that the administration cannot implement the new guidance against the defendants covered by the injunction while the case moves forward. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2026cv01402/291744/15/0.pdf))