Nancy Pelosi: Lawbreaker Or Law-Abiding Citizen?

In February 2020, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address. Pelosi's supporters praised her decision, while conservatives lambasted the act, calling it childish and partisan. Some, including Trump himself, went further by alleging that Pelosi had broken the law. In this instance, Trump and those who agreed with him were incorrect.

Did Nancy Pelosi break the law by ripping up Trump's State of the Union speech?

On February 4, 2020, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up her copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address. The act was widely circulated on social media and was criticised by Republicans, with some alleging that it was illegal.

Trump himself weighed in, telling reporters: "First of all, it's an official document. You're not allowed—it's illegal what she did. She broke the law."

However, legal experts have widely dismissed the idea that Pelosi broke the law. Pelosi's copy of the address was not an official government document, but rather a copy of Trump's speech, which was also provided to Vice President Mike Pence, members of Congress, and the media. The original speech was submitted to the National Archives and is prohibited from being destroyed. Copies of the speech can be kept or discarded.

William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law, confirmed that the act was not illegal, stating that the statute in question does not criminalize Pelosi's actions as it does not target the destruction of a copy of a document. Other legal experts, including Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, and Douglas Cox, a professor of law at the City of New York University School of Law, agreed that Pelosi's copy of the speech was not a government record and therefore she did not violate the law.

While Pelosi's actions are subject to ethical debate, her decision to rip up her copy of Trump's State of the Union address did not break the law.

Was Pelosi's copy of the speech an official document?

After US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up her copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address in February 2020, the act was criticised by Republicans, with some alleging that she had broken the law.

Trump himself weighed in, telling reporters: "First of all, it's an official document. You're not allowed — it's illegal what she did. She broke the law."

However, legal experts have widely dismissed the idea that Pelosi's actions were illegal. Pelosi did not violate the law that bans destroying an official document because her copy of the speech was not an official government record.

Victoria Nourse, a professor of law at Georgetown Law, said: "The state of the union isn’t 'filed or deposited' officially with the Speaker or Vice President Pence, they just get a copy. It’s the President’s copy that’s the official Presidential Record that goes to the National Archive, and Pelosi ripped her own copy, not his."

Nourse added that if the law were interpreted differently, "then any copy of the State of the Union held by anyone could never be destroyed".

Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, said: "I take it that this is a printout of the Trump speech, in which case it is absurd to suggest that Pelosi can be prosecuted for doing with it whatever she pleases."

Douglas Cox, a professor of law at the City of New York University School of Law and an expert in the laws governing the preservation of government records, said Pelosi's copy of the speech was "personal property".

William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law, said the claim that Pelosi broke the law was a "misinterpretation" of the code in question, as the copy of the speech was not an official file.

Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia Law School, said: "A saving grace of federal criminal law is that it’s applied by prosecutors, judges, and juries with common sense. That approach makes it impossible to see the aggressive recycling of a non-unique document as anything more than that."

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said he was "not convinced that this is a covered document", adding that a court would likely decline to find a violation of the law.

Some law professors have also argued that the First Amendment, or the US Constitution's free speech or debate clause, could offer further protection for Pelosi.

Did Pelosi violate 18 U.S.C. § 2071?

In February 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address. This act sparked claims that Pelosi had violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which relates to the "concealment, removal, or mutilation" of government records.

Section 2071 states that anyone who "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys" government records "filed or deposited" with a clerk, officer, or judicial or public officer of the United States shall be subject to fines and/or imprisonment of up to three years.

However, legal experts have unanimously concluded that Pelosi did not violate this code. They argue that Pelosi's copy of the speech was not an official government record or file. It was not "filed or deposited" with her, nor did she have "custody" of it in the legal sense. The copy was given to her by Trump as a memento, and she was free to do with it as she pleased.

Furthermore, the State of the Union address is available online, and there are countless copies of it, ensuring that future generations will have access to it.

In conclusion, while Nancy Pelosi's act of tearing up the speech may have been controversial, it did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2071.

Did Pelosi break the law that bans destroying official documents?

In February 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address. The move was lambasted by conservatives, with some alleging that Pelosi's actions were illegal.

Trump himself weighed in, telling reporters: "First of all, it's an official document. You're not allowed—it's illegal what she did. She broke the law." Florida Representative Matt Gaetz also filed an ethics complaint against Pelosi, quoting 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which states that it is illegal to "willfully and unlawfully conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate, or destroy" any government record "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States."

However, legal experts have widely dismissed the idea that Pelosi broke the law. Victoria Nourse, a professor of law at Georgetown Law, explained that the State of the Union address is a presidential record that must be filed with the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act. Pelosi ripped her own copy, not the official record, and therefore did not break the law.

William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law, agreed, stating that the code in question is being misinterpreted, as the copy of the speech ripped by Pelosi is not an official file. Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, echoed this sentiment, saying it is absurd to suggest that Pelosi could be prosecuted for destroying her own copy of the speech.

Douglas Cox, a professor of law at the City of New York University School of Law, noted that under House rules, members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records but are not legally required to do so. Pelosi's copy of the speech was not a government record or property, and therefore she did not break the law by destroying it.

In conclusion, while Pelosi's actions may have been controversial and sparked ethical debates, legal experts agree that she did not break the law that bans destroying official documents.

Did Pelosi violate the First Amendment?

Following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to publicly rip up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address, there was widespread debate about whether her actions were protected by the First Amendment. Pelosi's supporters praised her actions, while conservatives lambasted them as "partisan" and "childish".

Some legal experts have argued that the First Amendment, or the U.S. Constitution's free speech or debate clause, could offer further protection for Pelosi. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer argued that Pelosi's conduct was protected by the First Amendment. However, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy countered by saying that Pelosi "had no right to destroy this document".

The question of whether Pelosi violated the First Amendment hinges on the interpretation of the amendment's free speech clause and whether Pelosi's actions fall under protected speech. While Pelosi's actions may be considered expressive and protected by the First Amendment, others may argue that destroying a copy of the speech is not protected speech and could be considered a form of misconduct or a violation of ethical standards.

Legal experts have also weighed in on the issue, with some suggesting that Pelosi's actions do not constitute a violation of the law. Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia Law School, stated that "a saving grace of federal criminal law is that it's applied by prosecutors, judges, and juries with common sense. That approach makes it impossible to see the aggressive recycling of a non-unique document as anything more than that."

Additionally, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, concluded that Pelosi's actions would not be considered a violation of the law. He opined that "a court would likely decline to read the law broadly to find a violation on the margins of the defined covered conduct."

In conclusion, while there is debate about whether Pelosi violated the First Amendment, legal experts suggest that her actions are unlikely to be considered a violation of the law. The interpretation of the First Amendment's free speech clause and the specific circumstances of the case will play a crucial role in determining whether Pelosi's actions are protected by the amendment.

Frequently asked questions