Cameron Miranda
U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech in February 2020, sparking outrage among Republicans and claims that she had broken the law. Trump himself accused Pelosi of breaking the law, saying that her act was very illegal. However, legal experts have widely dismissed the idea that Pelosi broke the law, stating that her copy of the address was not an official document and that she did not violate any federal law.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of incident | February 4, 2020 |
| Person whose speech was ripped | President Donald Trump |
| Type of speech | State of the Union address |
| Law allegedly broken | 18 U.S.C. § 2071, Section 2071 |
| People who accused Pelosi of breaking the law | Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Charlie Kirk, Carl Higbie, Dan Bishop, Matt Gaetz |
| Pelosi's reason for ripping the speech | "I tried to find one page I could spare that didn't have a lie on it" |
| Legal experts' opinion on Pelosi's action | Pelosi did not break the law; her copy of the speech was not an official document |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The copy of the speech was not an official document
The copy of the speech that Nancy Pelosi ripped was not an official document. Pelosi tore up a copy of President Donald Trump's 2020 State of the Union address. This was not a government record or government property. It was personal property.
Video footage of the event shows that Trump handed copies of the speech to both Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence before he began speaking. Pelosi can be seen following along with the speech throughout.
According to 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, "her copy of the State of the Union address is not a government record or government property at all."
Under House rules, members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records or donate them to a research institution for historical study. However, unlike congressional committees, members are not legally required to hold onto their office's files.
"They can keep them private, they can destroy them, or they can rip them up," Cox said.
This is in contrast to presidential records, which have been considered government property since the Presidential Records Act of 1978. These records are supposed to be stored with the National Archives for safekeeping.
The State of the Union address is a presidential record, which must be sent to the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act. Pelosi did not mutilate the record that is filed with the Archives.
"If the statute were not read this way, then any copy of the State of the Union held by anyone could never be destroyed," said Victoria Nourse, a professor of law at Georgetown Law.
Legal experts have widely dismissed the idea that Pelosi's copy of the address would be subject to a criminal statute cited by some conservatives.
William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law, confirmed that the copy of the speech ripped by Pelosi is not an official file. "The statute does not criminalize Pelosi’s expressive action of tearing up her copy of the speech, he said.
Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia Law School, said 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."
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who served as an impeachment expert for House Republicans, also concluded that Pelosi's action would not be considered a violation of the law.
"I am not convinced that this is a covered document, Turley wrote on his blog. "It is a copy and a court would likely decline to read the law broadly to find a violation on the margins of the defined covered conduct."
Fetterman's Legal Woes: Did He Break the Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Pelosi's actions were protected by the First Amendment
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression. While Nancy Pelosi's action of ripping up a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address was controversial and criticised by many, including the President himself, it was protected by the First Amendment.
William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law, confirmed that the copy of the speech ripped by Pelosi is not an official file. He stated that the statute in question does not criminalise Pelosi's expressive action of tearing up her copy of the speech. He further added that even if there were ambiguity, any neutral judge would interpret the statute narrowly to avoid conflicting with the First Amendment's protection of expression.
Other legal experts, such as Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, agreed that it is absurd to suggest that Pelosi could be prosecuted for destroying her own personal copy of the speech. They clarified that the statute in question pertains to the destruction of government records or documents filed or deposited in official repositories, which was not the case with Pelosi's copy of the speech.
Additionally, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) confirmed that they will preserve a copy of the speech from the White House, ensuring that Pelosi's action does not prevent future generations from accessing the document.
In conclusion, while Pelosi's actions may have been controversial, they were protected by the First Amendment, and she did not violate any laws by ripping her personal copy of the State of the Union address.
Maxine Waters: Lawbreaker or Political Target?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The document was not filed or deposited with an official
The document that was ripped by Nancy Pelosi was a copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union (SOTU) speech. It was not the original document, and it was not filed or deposited in a public office of the United States.
The specific statute in question, 18 U.S.C. § 2071, establishes the following:
> (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, 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, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than three years, or both.
Legal experts have widely dismissed the idea that Pelosi's copy of the address would be subject to this statute. William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law, confirmed that this is a misinterpretation of the code in question, as the copy of the speech ripped by Pelosi is not an official file.
Victoria Nourse, a professor of law at Georgetown Law, explained that the State of the Union isn't "filed or deposited" officially with the Speaker or Vice President; they just get a copy. It is the President's copy that is the official Presidential Record that goes to the National Archive, and Pelosi ripped her own copy, not his.
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, stated that Pelosi's copy of the State of the Union address is not a government record or government property at all; it is personal property.
Under House rules, members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records or donate them to a research institution for historical study, but they are not legally required to do so. They can keep them private, destroy them, or rip them up.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) confirmed that they will receive the President's copy of the speech for preservation as a permanent record, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act. However, NARA also stated that they do not have information about the record status of Speaker Pelosi's copy of the speech.
In conclusion, the document ripped by Nancy Pelosi was not filed or deposited with an official, and therefore does not fall under the requirements for documents that cannot be destroyed according to the statute's definition.
Sanctuary Cities: Lawbreakers or Compassionate Reformers?
You may want to see also
Pelosi did not have custody of the document
The copy of the State of the Union address that was ripped by Nancy Pelosi was not a government record or government property. It was handed to her by President Trump before he began his speech. Pelosi did not have "custody" of the document in the legal sense.
According to 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, Pelosi's copy of the speech was "personal property".
Under House rules, members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records or donate them to a research institution for historical study, but they are not legally required to hold onto their office's files. They can keep them private, destroy them, or rip them up.
The State of the Union address is a presidential record, which must be sent to the National Archives for safekeeping under the Presidential Records Act. However, Pelosi did not mutilate the record that was filed with the Archives.
The purpose of the records law is to prevent someone from depriving the government of the use of its documents, and Pelosi's move "doesn't fit within the statute", according to Kathleen Clark, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis.
There are probably countless copies of Trump's address, and Pelosi's action does not prevent future generations from accessing one. If any copy of the State of the Union held by anyone could never be destroyed, then we would have nothing but warehouses from sea to sea, filled with documents, according to law professor Jonathan Turley.
Rideshare Drivers: Breaking Laws, Encouraged or Not?
You may want to see also
The document was personal property
The copy of the State of the Union address that was torn up by Nancy Pelosi was not a government record or government property. It was given to her by President Trump, and she was free to do with it as she pleased.
"Her copy of the State of the Union address is not a government record or government property at all," said 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. "It is personal property."
Under House rules, members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records or donate them to a research institution for historical study, but they are not legally required to hold onto their office's files. "They can keep them private, they can destroy them, or they can rip them up," Cox added.
This is in contrast to presidential records, which have been considered government property since the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and are supposed to be stored with the National Archives for safekeeping.
"The State of the Union is a presidential record, which must go to the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act," said Victoria Nourse, a professor of law at Georgetown Law. "(Pelosi) did not mutilate the record that is filed with the Archives."
Kathleen Clark, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, agreed, saying that the purpose of the records law "is to prevent someone from depriving the government of the use of its documents," and that Pelosi's move "doesn't fit within the statute".
There are probably countless copies of Trump's address, such as the version the White House posted online. Pelosi's action doesn't preclude future generations from accessing one.
"If the statute were not read this way, then any copy of the State of the Union held by anyone could never be destroyed," Nourse said.
In fact, Trump himself has a habit of ripping up papers when he's done with them. According to Politico, staff members have had to tape Trump's shredded files together in order to send them to the Archives and avoid crossing the Presidential Records Act.
Understanding Employee Break Rights and Federal Law
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, legal experts have widely dismissed the idea that Pelosi's copy of the address would be subject to a criminal statute cited by some conservatives. Pelosi's copy of the speech is not considered an official government document.
Pelosi said she ripped a copy of Trump's speech because it "shredded the truth". She told Democratic lawmakers that she tried to find one page in the speech that didn't have a lie on it.
Trump told reporters, "First of all, it's an official document. You're not allowed — it's illegal what she did. She broke the law."
