Judge John Bates issued a 54-page preliminary injunction requiring White House staff, DOGE, and the NSC to preserve records under the Presidential Records Act, overriding a DOJ memo calling the law unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge John Bates issued a 54-page preliminary injunction on May 20 ordering most White House staff to comply with the 1978 Presidential Records Act, directly contradicting a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memo that argued the law is unconstitutional [1]. The order takes effect May 26 and applies to chief of staff Susie Wiles, senior adviser Stephen Miller, the National Security Council, and the Department of Government Efficiency [2]. The ruling requires covered personnel to preserve official records as the statute mandates, foreclosing any reliance on the OLC position to justify document destruction.
Bates, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, entered the injunction in a case challenging White House records practices under the Presidential Records Act [1]. The OLC memo at issue had advanced the argument that President Trump holds constitutional authority to destroy presidential records and that Congress lacked power to restrict that authority [2]. Plaintiffs sought preliminary relief to halt any destruction of covered documents while litigation proceeds on the merits.
The legal core of the ruling rests on the Property Clause of the Constitution [1]. Bates concluded that the clause gives Congress authority to designate presidential records as federal property and to impose preservation requirements on those who handle them, undercutting the OLC's separation-of-powers rationale [2]. The 54-page opinion represents a direct judicial rebuke of an executive-branch legal position advanced to insulate White House recordkeeping from statutory oversight.
The practical reach of the order is notable. By naming DOGE and the NSC as covered entities, Bates extended preservation obligations to two offices whose document practices have drawn separate congressional and judicial scrutiny [1]. Any destruction of qualifying records between now and the effective date, or after it, would expose responsible officials to contempt proceedings in addition to the underlying statutory claims.
The injunction is preliminary, meaning the merits of the Presidential Records Act challenge remain before the court [2]. The government may seek a stay pending appeal or move to narrow the injunction's scope through further briefing. If Bates rules for plaintiffs on the merits, a permanent injunction and potential enforcement mechanisms could follow, setting a binding precedent on the constitutional status of the Act itself.