CREW and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP

Last updated

CREW and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP
Seal of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.png
Court United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Full case nameCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and National Security Archive v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America and the Executive Office of the President
DecidedPending (filed June 22, 2017)
Defendant Donald Trump in his capacity as President
Executive Office of the President
Counsel for plaintiff(s)George M. Clarke III
Mireille R. Oldak
Anne L. Weismann
Angela C. Vigil
Conor M. Shaw [1]
Plaintiff(s) Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
National Security Archive
Citation(s)No. 1:17-cv-01228
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Christopher R. Cooper

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP, No. 1:17-cv-01228 (D.D.C. 2017), is a case pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the archivist National Security Archive, allege that the defendants, President Donald Trump and elements of the Executive Office of the President, are in violation of the Presidential Records Act by deleting electronic messages on Twitter and using other electronic messaging applications without required archival records. [2]

Contents

Background

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had previously filed an emoluments case against the president, CREW v. Trump, where they alleged the President had been in violation of the constitution since the inauguration. The National Security Archive at George Washington University is a repository of declassified U.S. documents outside of the federal government. CREW and the National Security Archive are represented in this suit by both CREW staff lawyers and external counsel from the multinational law firm Baker McKenzie. [1] The United States Department of Justice represents Trump.

President Trump had used Twitter as a communication medium during his campaign and during his tenure as president, including tweets on inauguration day. [3] CREW contends that deletion of tweets is the destruction of presidential records in violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1981.

According to the text of the complaint:

This is a civil action for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief brought under the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2209 (“PRA”); the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202; and Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which imposes on the President a duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” challenging actions of the President, his staff, and the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) that seek to evade transparency and government accountability. [4]

Specific allegations

Opinion

The District Court ruled in favor of the Trump Administration, stating that the plaintiffs had failed to a clear and indisputable harm that merited the requested writ of mandamus. [7] [8] Thus, the case was dismissed and the administration was not required to restore the deleted communications. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, [9] but the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

Hatch Act United States law

The Hatch Act of 1939, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law. Its main provision prohibits civil service employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president and vice president, from engaging in some forms of political activity. It became law on August 2, 1939. The law was named for Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico. It was most recently amended in 2012.

National Security Archive Open government advocacy and investigative journalism nonprofit at George Washington University

The National Security Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-governmental, non-profit research and archival institution located on the campus of the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1985 to check rising government secrecy, the National Security Archive is an investigative journalism center, open government advocate, international affairs research institute, and the largest repository of declassified U.S. documents outside the federal government. The National Security Archive has spurred the declassification of more than 10 million pages of government documents by being the leading non-profit user of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), filing a total of more than 50,000 FOIA and declassification requests in its over 30 years of history.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) and nonpartisan U.S. government ethics and accountability watchdog organization. Founded in 2003 as a counterweight to conservative government watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch, CREW works to expose ethics violations and corruption by government officials and institutions and to reduce the role of money in politics.

<i>Wilson v. Libby</i>

Wilson v. Libby, 498 F. Supp. 2d 74, affirmed, 535 F.3d 697, was a civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on 13 July, 2006, by Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV, against Richard Armitage (individually) for allegedly revealing her identity and thus irresponsibly infringing upon her Constitutional rights and against Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, and the unnamed others (together) because the latter, in addition, allegedly "illegally conspired to reveal her identity." The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed.

Campaign for Accountability (CfA) is a liberal 501(c)(3) non-profit ethics watchdog group headquartered in Washington, D.C. CfA was co-founded in May 2015 by Anne Weismann, former legal counsel for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Louis Mayberg, former chairman of CREW. CfA group states that it "uses research, litigation and aggressive communications to expose misconduct and malfeasance in public life."

<i>CREW v. Trump</i> Lawsuit against Donald Trump concerning emoluments

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump was a case brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), hotel and restaurant owner Eric Goode, an association of restaurants known as ROC United, and an Embassy Row hotel event booker named Jill Phaneuf alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, was in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, a constitutional provision that bars the president or any other federal official from taking gifts or payments from foreign governments. CREW filed its complaint on January 23, 2017, shortly after Trump was inaugurated as president. An amended complaint, adding the hotel and restaurant industry plaintiffs, was filed on April 18, 2017. A second amended complaint was filed on May 10, 2017. CREW was represented by several prominent lawyers and legal scholars in the case.

Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban Legal disputes

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017 Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

Executive Order 13780 2017 executive order by U.S. President Trump placing travel restrictions on several countries

Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, was an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017. It placed limits on travel to the U.S. by nationals of several countries and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents. This executive order—sometimes called "Travel Ban 2.0"—revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27, 2017. Court rulings prohibited some of its key provisions from being enforced between March 15 and December 4, 2017. During its term of effect, it was revised by two presidential proclamations.

<i>D.C. and Maryland v. Trump</i> Lawsuit by Maryland and District of Columbia against Donald Trump concerning emoluments

D.C. and Maryland v. Trump was a lawsuit filed on June 12, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs, the U.S. state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, had violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution by accepting gifts from foreign governments. The lawsuit was filed by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.

<i>Blumenthal v. Trump</i> Lawsuit between members of Congress and Donald Trump concerning emoluments

Blumenthal v. Trump, 949 F.3d 14, was a U.S. constitutional law and federal civil procedure lawsuit heard by Circuit Judges Henderson, Tatel, and Griffith, of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case was on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted in part and denied in part the President's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, denied the President's motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, and certified interlocutory appeal.

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

<i>Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump</i> American legal case

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 302 F.Supp.3d 541, is a case at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, Philip N. Cohen, Eugene Gu, Holly Figueroa O'Reilly, Nicholas Pappas, Joseph M. Papp, Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, and Brandon Neely, are a group of Twitter users blocked by U.S. President Donald Trump's personal @realDonaldTrump account. They alleged that Twitter constitutes a public forum, and that a government official blocking access to that forum is a violation of the First Amendment. The lawsuit also named as defendants White House press secretary Sean Spicer and social media director Dan Scavino.

<i>ACLU v. Trump and Pence</i> Litigation

ACLU v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-01351, is a case pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, the watchdog group American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), alleges that the defendants, President Donald Trump and the Vice President Michael Pence, are in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act by establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity for the purpose of supporting the President’s "claim that he won the popular vote in the 2016 election—once millions of supposedly illegal votes are subtracted from the count."

<i>NAACP LDF v. Trump</i>

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-05427-ALC, is a case pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, The Ordinary People Society, and a coalition of civil rights groups allege that the defendants, President Donald Trump, the Vice President Michael Pence, and Kris Kobach are in violation of the Fifth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Federal Advisory Committee Act by establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PEIC) for the purpose of intentionally discriminating against Black and Latino voters in violation of the Fifth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution and the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

<i>Stone v. Trump</i>

Stone v. Trump (1:17-cv-02459-MJG) is a lawsuit filed on August 28, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleges that President Donald Trump's ban on transgender personnel joining the U.S. military violates their equal protection and due process rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland filed the suit on behalf of Petty Officer First Class Brock Stone, an 11-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, and several other transgender service members. In addition to President Trump, the suit names as defendants the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.

Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals (2017)

The Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals, officially the Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, is the 27th presidential memorandum signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on August 25, 2017. The intent was to prevent transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, on the basis that they would be a financial burden due to sex reassignment procedures and associated costs. It did not exclude transgenders indiscriminately. Federal courts delayed the implementation of this rule by issuing four injunctions. On January 22, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration's ban to take effect.

<i>Doe v. Trump</i> (2017)

Jane Doe v. Trump (1:17-cv-01597-CKK) was a lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017 and decided January 4, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit sought to block Donald Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the Trump administration's policy should not be blocked. Nonetheless, the Trump administration's policy continued to be blocked due to three preliminary injunctions against it that were not part of this lawsuit and which remained in effect as of the lawsuit's conclusion on January 4, 2019.

<i>Karnoski v. Trump</i>

Karnoski v. Trump (2:17-cv-01297-MJP) is a lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, like the similar suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Stockman v. Trump, seeks to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The suit was filed on the behalf of three transgender plaintiffs, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Gender Justice League by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN.

Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross is a United States District Court case in the District of Columbia in which the court determined whether or not a President may establish a marine national monument, the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906. The case represents the first time that the President's authority to create an offshore marine monument under the Act was directly challenged in court. While the District Court upheld the President's authority to designate the monument under the authority bestowed by the Antiquities Act, the case was appealed to the D.C. Circuit and awaits further judicial review.

References

  1. 1 2 Complaint, Docket 1, p. 38
  2. "CREW Sues President Trump over Presidential Records" (Press release). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. June 22, 2017. Retrieved June 24, 2017.
  3. Tweet dated 20 Jan 2017
  4. Complaint, Docket 1, p. 1
  5. "Trump sued for deleting tweets and White House use of encrypted messaging apps". Newsweek. June 22, 2017.
  6. "Trump Sued by Watchdog Group Over Auto-Delete Messaging Apps". Bloomberg. June 22, 2017.
  7. "CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17-cv-01228-CRC". PACER. November 2, 2015. Retrieved August 10, 2017.
  8. Lima, Cristiano (March 20, 2018). "Judge dismisses lawsuit on Trump aides' use of encrypted apps". Politico. Retrieved June 14, 2018.
  9. "Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals." (PDF), CREW v. Trump (Court Filing), D.D.C., vol. No. 1:17-cv-01228, no. Docket 26, June 22, 2017, retrieved June 14, 2018 via Recap
  10. Citizens for Responsibility v. Trump, 924 F.3d 602 (D.C. Cir., 2019).