Case: Freedom of the Press Foundation v. Trump
1:26-cv-01402 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: April 24, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenges a revised record-keeping policy that incorporated an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion declaring that the President need not comply with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The plaintiffs argued that these actions threatened the preservation of critical records and undermined their ability to access information essential to their missions.
On April 24, 2026, the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)—two nonprofit organizations dedicated to press freedom, government transparency, and accountability—filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against President Donald Trump, other federal officials, and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The lawsuit stemmed from the OLC's April 1, 2026, opinion that declared the PRA "unconstitutional" and "invalid in its entirety," stating that "the President need not further comply with its dictates.” The following day, April 2, 2026, the White House issued a revised record-keeping policy that adopted the OLC opinion and allegedly ceased compliance with PRA requirements. Under the new policy, the White House ceased requiring the creation or preservation of presidential records, including text messages, and granted officials broad discretion over retention. The complaint further alleged that NARA abandoned its statutory obligations pursuant to an executive order. The plaintiffs brought six causes of action: equitable claims, mandamus, ultra vires, separation of powers violations, Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims, and FOIA challenges. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order compelling compliance with the PRA, a permanent injunction against NARA's refusal to process FOIA requests, and an emergency order to preserve all relevant records during litigation. This case was assigned to District Judge John D. Bates.
The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on April 27, 2026. The following day, the court issued a scheduling order consolidating the preliminary-injunction hearing in this case with the hearing in American Historical Association v. Trump, 26-1169.
After argument on May 13, 2026, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on May 20, 2026. The court ordered that the defendants comply with the PRA by preserving and not destroying or deleting presidential and vice presidential records, ensuring covered employees send presidential or vice presidential records using official electronic message accounts, and establishing records retention policies to maintain presidential records.
With this ruling, the court issued a memorandum opinion where Judge Bates confirmed that the plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge the government's noncompliance with the PRA because they had demonstrated a substantial risk of informational injury from the Executive Branch's failure to preserve records, but lacked standing to sue the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Archivist, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Attorney General. On the merits, Judge Bates also held that the PRA is likely constitutional. Applying the Youngstown framework, he found that the President's power was at its "lowest ebb" when acting contrary to Congress's expressed will, and that the President therefore lacked authority to contravene the PRA. He further found that the PRA's requirements were narrowly tailored and did not unduly burden executive functions. Finally, the court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction, as they demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm from the permanent loss of historical records, and a favorable balance of equities and public interest.
The defendants appealed this ruling on June 2, 2026, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (No. 26-5186).
On June 30, 2026, the court ordered that all proceedings in the case be stayed pending the resolution of the defendants' appeal from the court’s preliminary injunction order. The stay did not encompass the preliminary injunction itself or litigation regarding compliance or enforcement.
This case is ongoing in both the district and appellate courts.
Summary Authors
Madeline Dollard (8/10/2026)
Related Cases
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION v. TRUMP, District of District of Columbia (2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73240660/parties/freedom-of-the-press-foundation-v-trump/
Bates, John D. (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Kelsi Brown (District of Columbia)
Bingham, Lauren Crowell (District of Columbia)
Counsel, Lauren C. (District of Columbia)
Bailey, John (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73240660/freedom-of-the-press-foundation-v-trump/
Last updated Aug. 10, 2026, 11:01 a.m.
Docket for: FREEDOM OF THE PRESS FOUNDATION v. TRUMP
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 24, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)—two nonprofit organizations dedicated to press freedom, government transparency, and accountability.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Donald J. Trump
J.D. Vance
National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”)
Office of the Vice President of the U.S.
The Executive Office of the President
White House Offices (WHO)
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), 5 U.S.C. § 552
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-01402
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-05186
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency)
Case Summary of Freedom of the Press Foundation v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48127/ (last updated 8/10/2026).