2024年，一面印有唐纳德·特朗普名字的旗帜在佛罗里达州海湖庄园附近的一群支持者中飘扬。
A flag featuring Donald Trump waves amid a group of supporters near Mar-a-Lago, Fla., in 2024.
Alon Skuy/Getty Images 自重返白宫以来，特朗普总统以突破行政权力的边界而闻名。
Alon Skuy/Getty Images President Trump has famously pushed the bounds of executive power since he returned to the White House.
在华盛顿一个联邦上诉法院周五的辩论中，政府律师将提出一个极其大胆的主张：在白宫中产生的文件属于唐纳德·特朗普，而不是美国人民。此举正值特朗普在第二任期内采取一系列行动，以考验水门事件后设立的权力限制之际，这也可能成为又一起最终上诉至保守派占多数的最高法院的案件。
In arguments Friday before a federal appeals court in Washington, administration lawyers will make an especially bold claim: that papers created in the White House belong to Donald Trump, not to the American people. The move comes amid a series of actions under Trump's second term to test the limits put in place after the Watergate scandal, and could be another case that ends up at the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.
自六个月前起，司法部采取行动试图废除《总统档案法》，这是一项自1978年起实施的联邦法律。保守派律师迈克尔·埃德尼将此举归类为削弱那个时代法规的一系列长期尝试之一。
Six months ago, the Justice Department moved to invalidate the Presidential Records Act, a federal law in place since 1978. Conservative lawyer Michael Edney cast the move in a long line of other attempts to pare back statutes from that era.
“这是一个关于水门事件后、过于宽泛的法定侵入行政部门特权的故事，”埃德尼在联邦党人协会赞助的近期网络研讨会上说。
"This is a story about a post-Watergate, overbroad statutory incursion into the prerogatives of the executive branch," Edney said in a recent webinar sponsored by the Federalist Society.
在大约200年的时间里，总统可以自行决定如何处理他们在任期间产生的文件，直到理查德·尼克松引发的争议促使国会介入。自那时起，历任总统都遵守了档案法，直到今年。
For some 200 years, presidents could decide for themselves what to do with the papers they created in office, until disputes with Richard Nixon prompted Congress to weigh in. Every president since then has complied with the records law, until this year.
“《总统档案法》是违宪的，是对权力分立的明显违反，”白宫女发言人劳伦·比斯说。
"The Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional and a clear violation of the separation of powers," said White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis.
白宫对该法案的重新诠释，是在特朗普因涉嫌在其海湖庄园的浴室、宴会厅和办公室囤积机密文件而被以妨碍司法公正罪起诉之后做出的。由于涉及检察官任命的技术原因，一名联邦法官驳回了此案，而在特朗普赢得连任后，司法部最终撤销了该案。
The White House's reinterpretation of the act comes after Trump was indicted on obstruction of justice charges for allegedly stockpiling classified documents in a bathroom, ballroom and office at his Mar-a-Lago resort. A federal judge threw out the case for technical reasons, related to the appointment of the prosecutor, and the Justice Department ultimately dropped the case after Trump won reelection.
关于公众对文件享有的权利的疑问尼克尔·苏斯是华盛顿监督组织“责任与道德公民”的首席法律顾问，该组织就特朗普的举动提起诉讼。
Question about the public's right to papers Nikhel Sus is chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that sued over the Trump move.
“如果法院接受这一主张，我们希望他们不会这样做，这将意味着人民确实没有权访问总统的文件，对于档案工作者、历史学家以及广大的美国人民来说，这将是一个重大的损失，”苏斯说。
"If the courts were to accept it, and we are hopeful that they will not, it would mean the people really have no right of access to the president's papers and that would be a major loss for archivists, historians and to the American people writ large," Sus said.
美国资深地区法官约翰·贝茨是由前总统乔治·W·布什任命的，他今年作出了不利于特朗普白宫的裁决，其判决书以乔治·奥威尔的反乌托邦小说《1984》中的一段话开篇：“谁控制过去就控制未来；谁控制现在就控制过去，”法官写道。
Senior U.S. District Judge John Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush ruled against the Trump White House this year, in a decision that opened with a passage from George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past," the judge wrote.
来自美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的三名法官将于周五审理此案。
Three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will consider the issue on Friday.
特朗普政府在法庭文件中表示，保存所有这些记录给白宫带来了负担，并且可能会压制顾问与总统进行坦诚对话的意愿。政府的连续性 但前政府官员表示，查阅这些文件至关重要。
The Trump administration said in court papers that keeping all those records imposes a burden on the White House and that it could chill advisers from having honest conversations with the president. Continuity of government But former government officials say being able to consult these papers is essential.
“查阅前总统关于国家安全问题的记录，对于我们政府的延续性至关重要，”曾在乔治·W·布什手下担任国家安全委员会法律顾问的约翰·贝林格说。
"Access to the records on national security issues of former presidents is really vital for the continuity of our government," said John Bellinger, who served as legal adviser to the National Security Council under George W. Bush.
贝林格说，他和布什的其他幕僚有时会索取前总统比尔·克林顿的文件，以了解克林顿与世界领导人及国会议员的对话。
Bellinger said he and other members of Bush's staff sometimes requested the papers of President Bill Clinton, to understand conversations Clinton had with world leaders and members of Congress.
“通常情况下，关于总统对外国领导人说了什么——或者也许更重要的是，外国领导人无论是敌是友，对美国总统说了什么——唯一的记录都在书面文件中，”贝林格说。
"Often the only record of what a president has said to a foreign leader — or perhaps even more important, what a foreign leader, friend or foe, has said to the president of the United States — is in a written document," Bellinger said.
他说，如果看不到这些文件，将使未来的总统处于“极度不利的境地”。
To not be able to see those papers, he said, will leave future presidents at a "terrible disadvantage."
曾在布什的国家安全委员会和司法部工作过的埃德尼表示，他认为国会或许能够通过一项“深思熟虑”的档案保存法规。他说，当前《总统档案法》中赋予国会自动查阅权并推定档案将被公开披露的部分“在宪法上存在问题”。埃德尼表示，他对提起诉讼以挑战特朗普举动的监督组织是否实际具备继续诉讼的法律资格表示一些怀疑。
Edney, who also worked for Bush's National Security Council and Justice Department, said he believed that Congress could probably pass a "thoughtful" records preservation statute. He said parts of the current Presidential Records Act that provide Congress with automatic access and presume the records will be publicly disclosed are "constitutionally problematic." Edney said he has some doubts about whether the watchdog groups suing to challenge Trump's move actually have legal standing to proceed.
但特朗普政府似乎对这些担忧轻描淡写，因为他们心中有一个更高的目标。
But the Trump administration appears to have breezed past those concerns, because they have a higher goal in mind.
“他们希望此案能上诉到最高法院，”埃德尼说。“我认为他们希望在他们选择的时间、用他们选择的论点、在一个他们选择的法院，并由替他们进行辩论的副总检察长办公室来解决这个问题，而不是由随后的政府来处理。”
"They want this to go to the Supreme Court," Edney said. "I think they want this resolved at a time of their choosing, with arguments of their choosing, and a court of their choosing, and with the Solicitor General's office that's making their arguments, as opposed to a subsequent administration."