The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Supreme Court Refuses to Block Release of Trump January 6 Documents to Congress

But it leaves open the question of whether a former president might be able to use executive privilege to block release of documents in future cases.


Today the Supreme Court rejected former President Donald Trump's request to issue an injunction blocking release of presidential documents to Congress, related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and Trump's own role in inspiring it. The documents have been demanded by the congressional select committee investigating the attack; the Biden administration supported the congressional committee's demands. The Supreme Court's ruling on this point essentially affirms an earlier DC Circuit decision against Trump, and clears the way for release of the documents.

However, the per curiam majority opinion leaves open the issue of whether former presidents might be able to use executive privilege to block release of documents  demanded by Congress in at least some future cases:

The questions [of] whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns. The Court of Appeals, however, had no occasion to decide these questions because it analyzed and rejected President Trump's privilege claims "under any of the tests [he] advocated," Trump v. Thompson, 20 F. 4th 10, 33 (CADC 2021), without regard to his status as a former President… Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump's claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court's decision. Id., at 33 (noting no "need [to] conclusively re solve whether and to what extent a court," at a former President's behest, may "second guess the sitting President's" decision to release privileged documents)…. Any discussion of the Court of Appeals concerning President Trump's status as a former President must therefore be regarded as nonbinding dicta.

Justice Clarence Thomas indicated he would have ruled in favor of Trump in this case, though without writing a opinion explaining why.

In a concurring statement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that, while Trump should not be permitted to block the release of these particular documents, former presidents should be allowed to do so in at least some situations:

If Presidents and their advisers thought that the privilege's protections would terminate at the end of the Presidency and that their privileged communications could be disclosed when the President left office (or were subject to the absolute control of a subsequent President who could be a political opponent of a former President), the consequences for the Presidency would be severe. Without sufficient assurances of continuing confidentiality, Presidents and their advisers would be chilled from engaging in the full and frank deliberations upon which effective discharge of the President's duties depends.

To be clear, to say that a former President can invoke the privilege for Presidential communications that occurred during his Presidency does not mean that the privilege is absolute or cannot be overcome. The tests set forth in Nixon [v. United States], 418 U. S., at 713, and Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F. 2d 725, 731 (CADC 1974) (en banc), may apply to a former President's privilege claim as they do to a current President's privilege claim. Moreover, it could be argued that the strength of a privilege claim should diminish to some extent as the years pass after a former President's term in office.

I think Kavanaugh is wrong about this. If it exists at all (some scholars argue it does not), executive privilege is a power of the office of the presidency, and can only be wielded by the person who occupies the office at the time in question. Once he leaves office, he loses all the power and privileges associated with it, except perhaps those specifically extended by laws enacted by Congress (e.g. - pension rights and continuing security provided by the Secret Service). As the Court of Appeals opinion in this case explains, "the privilege, like all other Article II powers, resides with the sitting President."

No one claims that a former president can continue to issue executive orders, receive ambassadors, or act as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He cannot keep on wielding any of those powers, even if he feels he needs to do so to prevent a successor from embarrassing him. The same logic applies to executive privilege. These are all powers of the office that expire as soon as the president's term in office at ends. At that point, he has no more executive authority than any other private citizen.

It's true, as Kavanaugh and others have pointed out, that this approach allows current presidents to release predecessors' documents in ways that might embarrass the latter. Fear of such an eventuality might indeed inhibit current presidents' deliberations with their advisers. But there are many things incumbent presidents can do that might embarrass predecessors, including reversing the latter's policies in ways that make them look bad, blaming them for various problems, and so on. The possibility that such things might happen can potentially inhibit presidents from adopting various policies, as well as inhibit advisers from recommending a given course of action.

But the Constitution does not give former presidents any general power to block successors' actions that might embarrass them. And, while fear of future embarrassment might sometimes inhibit good policies, it also can prevent bad ones. If future revelation of your activities in office might prove embarrassing, that may be because you're doing something wrong!

Regardless, the Constitution does not grant executive privilege - or any other official power - to former presidents. Absent specific laws to the contrary, they should be treated as private citizens, on par with everyone else.

In sum, the Court got this case right. They and the DC Circuit are, I think, correct to conclude that this particular claim of executive privilege should have been rejected even if asserted by an incumbent president. But the issue of when and whether a former president can block release of documents demanded by Congress (with the approval of the incumbent president) in other cases may well come back to the Court in the future.

NEXT: Lawyer Lin Wood Was Wrongly Faulted by Delaware Trial Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As I said in another thread here, Kavanaugh's position is just terrible. To the extent executive privilege exists at all — and, of course, it should be noted that there's no actual constitutional basis for it — it is an Article II power of the presidency.

    "We don't like how the president might use one of his powers, so we will take it away from him and give it to a private citizen" is just not a thing.

    1. I don't know that it's possible to fashion a workable rule here, but if it is, I don't see a good reason not to do so. This whole executive privilege rule is unwritten constitutional law, and the courts can develop it if they like.

  2. I suppose from the Trump's lawyers' point of view it was worth a shot. Had Scalia still been alive he would have found some way to make it work. Not like that weak-ass pussy Kavanaugh. Scalia probably would have written something about Trump's "right to rule" as he did for GWB. Good times.

    I am actually starting to feel sorry for the guy. He has successfully played the obstruction game for so long so successfully, coupled with the "I'm president so I'm immune to anything" strategy also so successfully, that the collapse of his house of cards must be truly bewildering and terrifying. Look for some more Stop The Steal MAGA rallies.

    1. "Not like that weak-ass pus [. . . .] Kavanaugh."

      Watch it! Prof. Volokh censors that term at the Volokh Conspiracy.

      Well, Prof. Volokh censors that term when a liberal uses it. If you are a conservative, the record indicates he may allow it despite the transgression of this blog's ostensible civility standards.

  3. "If future revelation of your activities in office might prove embarrassing, that may be because you're doing something wrong!"

    I'm a bit uncomfortable with this aspect of your argument. It sounds similar to attempts to overrule rights of US citizens by saying, "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, why should you care about XYZ?"

    1. Nobody is born in to the office of president. Nobody has to serve.

      If you willingly assume the responsibilities of running this unique place for a time, you're doing the peoples' work, not your own. And your work output rightly belongs to the people.

      People keep mistaking being president for some sort of privilege. That's going to kill the country.

  4. > while Trump should not be permitted to block the release of these particular documents, former presidents should be allowed to do so in at least some situations:

    If this is a President we politically support the ruling would be different, but since we don't like THIS President no privileges for you.

    1. Yup, pretty much. It was TrumpLaw in action.

      The defining characteristic of TrumpLaw isn't that the principle justifying the ruling is bad. It's that it won't be applied to somebody not Trump.

      1. Nope.

        This is just a crap one-justice opinion by Kavanaugh. No proof of a conspiracy against Trump.

        Yet again.

        1. To be clear, though I think the motive for wanting these documents is purely to have them available for political abuse, I think Trump should have lost, because executive privilege IS a privilege of the Executive, and that isn't Trump right now. That's why I said it wasn't being bad that made a ruling Trump law, because this outcome wasn't bad.

          By beef is that the ruling wasn't clear that the precedent would apply to future Presidents, too.

          1. A majority of the current Court consists of conservative Republicans.
            Three were picked by Trump. You feel put-upon because society has been rejecting your stale, bigoted, right-wing thinking for decades. Don't confuse that with the issue of whether Trump receives a fair hearing. There is scant authority (or sound argument) to support many or perhaps most of his legal claims, which explains why he has compiled a remarkable losing streak in courts throughout the United States. Trump lost this one because he deserved to lose it. Only Thomas saw it differently, and he couldn't or wouldn't produce even the lamest justification for his vote.

    2. That's a translation, alright. From English to Trumpkinloon.

    3. Do you think Trump's own appointees convinced the others to bring him down like this?

  5. "Justice Clarence Thomas indicated he would have ruled in favor of Trump in this case, though without writing a opinion explaining why."

    Good God, this man is an embarrassment to the bench, the legal community, and the United States.

    Is he just too lazy to ask one of his clerks to write a dissent? How hard can that possibly be?

    1. He's just the kind of justice I want to see as the dean of the other side's bench. I hope he never changes.

Please to post comments