“Since its founding in 1884, the American Historical Association has advocated for the preservation of federal records. The AHA’s 1910 argument in support of establishing a National Archives remains true in this current fight for preservation: these records are ‘materials which historians must use in order to ascertain the truth.’ Presidential records are essential for transparency and accountability in our democracy; they are also essential sources for researching and understanding the American past. Those records and the history they tell belong not to any individual, but to the American people.”Sarah Weicksel “This [the National Archives] is an institution that deserves support across the federal government. Not only because it preserves the key documents that laid the groundwork for our nation’s existence, but because it’s the institution that preserves the long history of ordinary people as well as the workings of the federal government.”Sarah Weicksel “The preservation of these records, both current, past and future, are all essential to democratic processes that depend upon appropriate public scrutiny.”Sarah Weicksel<\/strong>AHA Executive Director The American Historical Association, in collaboration with American Oversight, filed a lawsuit challenging a recent memorandum from the Department of Justice declaring the Presidential Records Act unconstitutional, potentially blocking public access to hundreds of millions of records and presenting serious risk to transparency and recordkeeping throughout the executive branch, including the National Archives.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLearn More\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n In January 2021, the AHA joined<\/a> the Washington state attorney general’s office; the state of Oregon; the city of Seattle; 29 tribes, tribal entities, and Indigenous communities from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska; and 8 community organizations, historic preservation organizations, and museums in filing a lawsuit<\/a> to halt the sale of the NARA facility in Seattle. The coalition filed nearly 600 pages of declarations from 79 individuals<\/a>, including those written by historians and AHA members, testifying to the importance of the facility to the region.<\/p>\n The efforts of the AHA and co-plaintiffs successfully halted the sale of the NARA facility in Seattle, Washington. A federal judge in Seattle blocked the federal government’s plan to expedite the sale of the facility and the removal of the records from the Pacific Northwest.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLearn More\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n In December 2019, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) approved a request from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to schedule the disposal of certain agency records for which ICE no longer had a business use. Together, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Historical Association, and the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations challenged<\/a> NARA’s approval of that request as arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law. The American Historical Association contested that the records delineated in this suit are an important part of the public record that must be available to future generations of historians.<\/p>\n The challenge was largely successful<\/a>. On March 12, 2021, Judge Amit Mehta\u00a0granted summary judgment\u00a0on the challenged aspects of ICE’s records destruction plan, writing, “NARA’s approval of the schedule was arbitrary and capricious on the grounds that NARA failed to evaluate the research value of the ICE records and that NARA failed to address significant and relevant public comments.” The court thus invalidated “NARA’s approval of the ICE Disposition Schedule as to the Sexual Abuse and Assault Files, ERO Death Review Files, Detainee Segregation Case Files, Detention Monitoring Reports, and DRIL Records and remands those portions of the Schedule to NARA for further consideration.”<\/p>\n The court also made clear that during its records evaluation process, NARA must pay close attention to the records’ long-term research value and must meaningfully consider public comments raising concerns.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLearn More\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n The AHA joined the National Security Archive, the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington as plaintiffs in a lawsuit<\/a> intended to prevent valuable historical records from being irretrievably lost. The plaintiffs sought to ensure that the current administration complies with, and the National Archives provides oversight for, the charge of the Presidential Records Act to preserve “complete copies” of presidential records, including relevant metadata of digital materials.<\/p>\n The lawsuit drew on documented evidence of violations of the Presidential Records Act to seek court-ordered compliance during the transition. The judge determined that such action was unnecessary only because the Justice Department responded to the suit by issuing a formal “litigation hold” to all White House personnel that lasted up to the inauguration on January 20.<\/p>\n The advocacy by the AHA and our collaborators for the preservation of presidential records helped shape specific policies going forward. For instance, White House records managers successfully deployed an archival tool in the WhatsApp software to capture full copies of messages&emdash;a central issue in this lawsuit. In light of the Biden administration’s White House records policy, and with the National Archives and Records Administration now in legal possession of the Trump Presidential Records, the AHA and its co-plaintiffs filed to dismiss the suit without prejudice.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLearn More\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n The American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association, and the Modern Language Association have filed a lawsuit in federal district court, seeking to reverse the recent actions to devastate the National Endowment for the Humanities.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLearn More\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n Elliot Carlson, along with scholarly, journalistic, and historic organizations, sought access<\/a> to grand-jury materials sealed decades ago. The materials concern an investigation into the Chicago Tribune<\/em> in 1942 for a story it published revealing that the US military had cracked Japanese codes. The government conceded that there are no interests favoring continued secrecy, but declined to turn over the materials. In June 2015, the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois found in favor of the plaintiffs led by Elliot Carlson. The Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed, claiming under the Code of Federal Criminal Practices that the government had custody of the grand jury records and, with Rule 6(e) of the code, the court had no right to open them. The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling in favor of Carlson.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\tIn re Petition of National Security Archive et al. for Order Directing Release of Grand Jury Minutes<\/i> (2015)<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExpand<\/i><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t Petitioners (the National Security Archive, American Historical Association, American Society of Legal History, Organization of American Historians, Society of American Archivists, and Sam Roberts) sought the release of grand jury records<\/a> related to the prosecutions in this Court of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\tIn re Petition of Stanley Kutler et al. for Order Directing Release of Richard M. Nixon’s Grand Jury Testimony of June 23-24, 1975, and Associated Materials of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force<\/i> (2010)<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExpand<\/i><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t Together with historian Stanley Kutler, the American Society for Legal History, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society of American Archivists, the American Historical Society petitioned for the release of the transcript of Richard M. Nixon’s grand jury testimony of June 23-24, 1975, along with certain materials of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. The petitioners argued that the historical significance of Watergate in general, and in particular Richard Nixon’s role in it, justified the release of the materials. The petition was granted<\/a> in July 2011, with the court ruling that the historical importance of the materials far outweighed any privacy concerns.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\tIn re Petition of National Security Archive et al. for Order Directing Release of Grand Jury Minutes<\/i> (2008)<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExpand<\/i><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t On July 22, 2008, a federal court in New York ruled that the government must release most of the sealed grand jury records from the 1951 indictment of alleged Soviet spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The lead petitioner in the case was the National Security Archive at George Washington University. The lawsuit was joined by the American Historical Association, the American Society for Legal History, the Organization of American Historians, the Society of American Archivists, and New York Times reporter Sam Roberts.<\/p>\n In response to a petition<\/a> filed by the plaintiffs, the government conceded in a June filing that the Rosenberg case is of “significant historical importance,” and therefore said it would not contest the release of testimony of witnesses who have passed away or consented to the disclosure. On the basis of the government’s concession, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said he would order release of the testimony of 36 witnesses. Judge Hellerstein has scheduled a follow-up hearing on August 26 to consider unresolved issues and to set a time frame for the release of the materials.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\tCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington et al. v. Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. <\/i>(2008)<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExpand<\/i><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Stanley I. Kutler, Martin J. Sherwin, the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, the Society of American Archivists, and the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations.<\/p>\n Vice President Richard B. Cheney in his official capacity, the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the Office of the Vice President (OVP), the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and Dr. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States, in his official capacity. Plaintiffs allege<\/a> that Vice President Cheney, the OVP, and the EOP have improperly excluded records from the Presidential Records Act.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\tAmerican Historical Association et al. v. National Archives and Records Administration et al.<\/i> (2007)<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExpand<\/i><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t This case<\/a> was a challenge<\/a> brought on behalf of a number of individuals and groups, including the American Historical Association, to President George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13233, which attempted to give former presidents and vice presidents new powers to prevent the National Archives from releasing historical records relating to their administrations. Public access to records of former presidents is governed by the Presidential Records Act, which restricts access to materials for a number of years after a president leaves office, but then generally provides for public access subject to a limited number of exceptions.<\/p>\n The Bush Executive Order allowed former presidents and vice presidents to veto release of their materials merely by making an assertion of “privilege.” It also resulted in lengthy delays in access to materials while former officeholders engaged in reviews of their materials to determine whether to assert a privilege to block release. When the Order was first promulgated, in the first year of President Bush’s term in office, it resulted in thousands of pages of Reagan presidential materials being held back from public release.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t In re Petition of American Historical Association et al. for Order Directing Release of Grand Jury Minutes<\/i> (1999)<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExpand<\/i><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t A half century ago, Alger Hiss, a former high-ranking State Department official, was convicted for committing perjury in responding to allegations that he was a Soviet spy. The matter presently before the Court concerns the two special grand juries convened from 1947 to 1950 to investigate allegations of espionage, the first of which handed up the indictment underlying Hiss’s conviction. Petitioners, a coalition of historical associations including the American Historical Association, move the Court for an order<\/a> directing that transcripts of both special grand juries pertaining to the investigation of Hiss be disclosed to the public. The Government opposes disclosure.<\/p>\n Because of the historical significance of most of the transcripts, the lack of need to keep the materials secret, the long passage of time since the special grand juries were convened, and the other reasons stated in this Opinion, petitioners’ motion is granted in part and denied in part: they allowed the release of most transcripts but withheld specific testimony based on privacy objections. This case, along with similar efforts, helped establish that courts have inherent authority to release grand jury materials of exceptional historical significance.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\tPublic Citizen et al. v. John Carlin, Archivist of the United States, et al.<\/i> (1998)<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExpand<\/i><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t In 1995 the Archivist of the United States promulgated General Records Schedule 20 (GRS 20) pursuant to his authority under the Records Disposal Act. GRS 20 requires each federal agency to which the RDA applies to dispose of word processing and electronic mail files located in personal computers once it has copied them to a paper or an electronic recordkeeping system.<\/p>\n Public Citizen and others sued<\/a> the Archivist, the Executive Office of the President (EOP), and two components of the EOP under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that GRS 20 violates the RDA and is arbitrary and capricious.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\tAmerican Historical Association et al. v. Trudy Peterson<\/i> (1995)<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExpand<\/i><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t The Plaintiffs ask the Court<\/a> to declare null and void a Memorandum of Agreement between former President Bush and former Archivist Don W. Wilson (“Bush-Wilson Agreement” or “Agreement”), signed on the day former President Bush left office, which purports to give former President Bush exclusive control over electronic records of the Executive Office of the President created during former President Bush’s term in office. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to enjoin the Acting Archivist from implementing the Bush-Wilson Agreement. As grounds therefore, the Plaintiffs assert that the Agreement violates the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”), as well as Article II of the Constitution, and that the decision by the Archivist to enter into that Agreement was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act.<\/p>\n Judge Charles Richey ordered Acting Archivist Trudy Peterson not to enforce the agreement signed the day Bush left office by the former president and the then-Archivist of the United States Don Wilson. Richey said the agreement violates the Presidential Records Act, enacted after President Richard Nixon left office, which requires the Archivist to assume responsibility for Presidential records, to preserve them and to make them public as rapidly and completely as possible under the terms of the Act. Although an out-going President may designate some restrictions on particular categories of records, it is the Archivist who makes the final decisions about what will be restricted, Richey ruled. The court also held that the agreement was unconstitutional. The Constitution gives an incumbent President authority to direct current executive branch officials. The Bush- Wilson agreement would have given the power to direct the Archivist’s actions to the former President, the court said.<\/p>\n In 2023, the Society of American Archivists and the AHA hosted an online roundtable about the current controversies surrounding presidential records.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWatch Now\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t The AHA released a statement in 2022 “condemn[ing] in the strongest terms former President Donald J. Trump’s reported extensive and repeated violations of the Presidential Records Act of 1978.”<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLearn More\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t In this 2021 panel, three experts on archives, preservation, and access discuss issues regarding the archival implications of presidential transitions.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLearn More\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n
<\/strong>AHA Executive Director<\/p>\t\t\n\t\t\t
<\/strong>AHA Executive Director
In\u00a0The Boston Globe<\/em><\/a>, March 2026<\/p>\t\t\n\t\t\t
In\u00a0Politico<\/em><\/a>, April 2026<\/p>\t\t\n\n\t\t\tRecent AHA Legal Actions (2020-Present)\t<\/h3>\n
\n\t\t\tAHA Files Lawsuit to Defend the Presidential Records Act\t<\/h4>\n\t
\n\t\t\tState of WA et al. v. Russell Vought et al.<\/i> (2021)\t<\/h4>\n\t
\n\t\t\tCREW et al. v. NARA et al.<\/i> (2020-21)\t<\/h4>\n\t
\n\t\t\tNational Security Archive et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.<\/i> (2020)\t<\/h4>\n\t
\n\t\t\tLawsuit to Restore the NEH\t<\/h4>\n\t
\n\t\t\tPre-2020 AHA Legal Actions\t<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\tElliot Carlson et al. v. USA<\/i> (2016)<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExpand<\/i><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\tAHA Resources on the Presidential Records Act\t<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t
![\"utsav-srestha-HeNrEdA4Zp4-unsplash\"](\"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/utsav-srestha-HeNrEdA4Zp4-unsplash.jpg\" "\\"utsav-srestha-HeNrEdA4Zp4-unsplash\\"")
\n\n\t\t\tHistory Behind the Headlines: Presidential Records Act\t<\/h5>\n\t
![\"NARA\"](\"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/NARA.gif\")
\n\n\t\t\tAHA Statement Condemning Violations of Presidential Records Act\t<\/h5>\n\t
![\"george-diama-hwQuHrv6p8c-unsplash\"](\"https:\/\/www.historians.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/george-diama-hwQuHrv6p8c-unsplash.jpg\" "\\"george-diama-hwQuHrv6p8c-unsplash\\"")
\n\n\t\t\tPreserving Records: Archives and Presidential Transitions\t<\/h5>\n\t
\n\t\t\tPerspectives<\/i> on Archives & Records\t<\/h3>\n
\n\t\t\tAmicus Briefs\t<\/h4>\n\t