How do state laws differ from federal law regarding a president's power to request unsealing of state criminal records?

1. Different systems: state courts and statutes versus federal records law

Criminal records at the state level are subject to each state’s laws on sealing and expungement and to state court rules; those sealed records can often be reopened only through state statutory procedures or by a state court order, and the availability of expungement differs by jurisdiction (for example, expungement is not available federally for federal crimes) ^[1]. By contrast, presidential and federal records are governed by federal statutes — principally the Presidential Records Act (PRA) for presidential materials and the Federal Records Act (FRA) for agency records — which assign ownership and custody to the United States and to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Who can order unsealing — judges, not presidents

Judicial records and court-protected materials (including grand jury transcripts) are governed by court rules and judicial orders; only a judge may authorize release of court-protected material, not the President acting alone, according to legal commentary and press analysis ^[4]. That constraint means a presidential request to “unseal” state court files would not itself override judicial processes or statutory protections that apply in the relevant state ^[4].

3. Presidential records: custody and release process under the PRA

The PRA makes presidential records government property and gives the incumbent President exclusive custody while in office, with transfer to the Archivist when the President leaves office; the PRA establishes a process for public access (FOIA) beginning five years after an administration ends and permits certain restrictions for up to 12 years ^{[2] [5]}. NARA must notify presidents of intent to release records and allows review periods (typically 60 working days, extendable by statute), so release under the PRA follows set administrative steps rather than instantaneous presidential fiat ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Federal records law and agency roles complicate unilateral release claims

The Federal Records Act governs agency records and was updated by the 2014 amendments to include electronic records and to clarify the Archivist’s role; NARA and agency processes thus mediate public access to many federal documents, meaning an individual President’s statement does not automatically change custody rules for federal agency records ^{[7] [3]}. Available sources do not describe a mechanism by which a President can instantly override statutory or agency controls to unseal third‑party state records ^{[3] [7]}.

5. Protections that can block release — victims, grand juries, privacy

Certain categories of information are shielded by statute and court rules — for example, grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e), victim-privacy protections, and law‑enforcement exemptions — and these protections are administered by courts and statutory bodies; legal analysts stress that presidents cannot simply republish or “release” court-protected material without judicial authorization ^[4]. NARA also withholds records under FOIA exemptions that protect privacy and active law-enforcement information, showing federal administrative layers that limit disclosure ^[8].

6. What this means in practice: requests, persuasion, and litigation

A president may request that a state or federal body consider releasing records or may publicly call for disclosure, but practical effect depends on the specific legal regime: state statutes and judges control state criminal records, federal law and the Archivist control presidential/federal records, and courts control judicial records like grand jury material ^{[1] [2] [4]}. If a president or executive branch entity seeks release, the actual pathway is typically litigation or formal requests through the statutory processes described in the PRA and FRA — not unilateral declassification or unsealing ^{[6] [7]}.

Limitations and open questions

Available sources do not offer a comprehensive state-by-state chart of how governors or state attorneys general can influence unsealing, so readers should consult the specific state statutes and court rules applicable to the jurisdiction in question (available sources do not mention a unified state standard) ^[1]. Where federal and state interests intersect (for example, grand-jury material or records involving federal investigations), conflicts are resolved case-by-case in courts and through the statutory processes described above ^{[4] [2]}.