Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. & Nat'l SEC. Archive v. Trump

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. & Nat'l SEC. Archive v. Trump, 924 F.3d 602 (D.C. Cir. 2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · May 28, 2019 · No. No. 18-5150

Summary

**Presidential Records Act – Mandamus – Message-Deleting Apps – Judicial Review of Recordkeeping** The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of a mandamus action seeking to compel President Trump to prohibit White House staff from using message-deleting apps (e.g., Snapchat, Confide) for official communications. The court held that the White House’s February 2017 memo prohibiting such apps and directing use of official email accounts satisfied the President’s duties under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and that CREW failed to show a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief. Even if the memo were imperfectly enforced, courts lack jurisdiction to review day-to-day presidential recordkeeping compliance under *Armstrong v. Bush*, 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991). The decision underscores that the PRA precludes judicial micromanagement of the President’s internal records management practices.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the Court
Tatel; Pillard; Edwards
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
May 28, 2019
Docket number
No. 18-5150
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied writ of mandamus and dismissed complaint.
Standard of review
De novo review of threshold requirements for mandamus jurisdiction and motion to dismiss.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and National Security Archive v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, and Executive Office of the President of the United States
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

civil procedureremediesstatutory interpretationseparation of powersadministrative law

Practice areas

Federal PracticePresidential Records ActMandamus

Questions Presented

  1. Whether CREW is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the President to comply with the PRA by prohibiting the use of message-deleting apps and implementing records management controls.

Holdings

  1. CREW failed to establish a clear and indisputable right to relief because the White House issued a facially PRA-compliant memo prohibiting the use of such apps, and because courts lack jurisdiction to review day-to-day PRA compliance under Armstrong I.

Key quotations

the remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations. (at 2)
In order to obtain mandamus relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a 'clear and indisputable right to relief,' (2) that the government official has a 'clear duty to act,' and (3) that 'no adequate alternative remedy exists.' (at 5)
CREW has failed to establish the most fundamental element of mandamus: a clear and indisputable right to relief. (at 6)
Together, then, the February 2017 Memo and Armstrong I establish that CREW has no 'clear and indisputable right to [mandamus] relief,' thus depriving this court of jurisdiction. (at 11)

Factual background

Shortly after President Trump took office, press reports indicated that White House personnel used messaging apps that automatically delete messages. CREW sued, alleging that this practice violates the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which requires preservation of official presidential records. CREW sought a writ of mandamus to prohibit use of such apps and require guidelines. The White House had issued a memo in February 2017 prohibiting the use of such apps and directing staff to use official email accounts. The district court dismissed the mandamus claim.

Procedural history

The district court granted the White House's motion to dismiss the mandamus claim, concluding that the PRA does not obligate the President to perform any duty with the requisite specificity. The court also denied a motion to alter or amend judgment, finding that the plaintiff forfeited arguments about other duties. CREW appealed both decisions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…