The opinion could give the DOJ and White House a framework for responding to subpoenas from a Democrat-led House of Representatives if Democrats were to regain control of the chamber following the November elections, when lawmakers would likely begin to investigate Trump’s dealings with outside lawyers, business executives, and political advisers.

OLC relied in part on a 2007 department opinion by then-Solicitor General and Acting Attorney General Paul Clement, involving the dismissal of U.S. attorneys and the D.C. Circuit’s 1997 decision in In re Sealed Case. That decision held that the “presidential communications privilege” can cover information direct presidential advisers solicit or receive from outside sources while preparing advice for the president. But it also warned against extending the privilege so broadly that government material becomes “sequestered” from public view.

A source familiar with the matter pointed the Washington Examiner toward some of the limiting principles outlined in the memo.

“While the issue has not been litigated frequently, the Opinion reaffirms the longstanding position of the office going back at least as far as Paul Clement in 2007 and arguably as far back as 1972,” the source said, referring to former President George W. Bush’s solicitor general and the Nixon administration, respectively.

For example, the guidance would not assert an automatic block on subpoenas or bar testimony. Instead, the White House would need to assert executive privilege over particular records or questions. A court could then decide whether the communications satisfy the OLC test and whether the party seeking the information has demonstrated a sufficient need for disclosure.

While Democrats’ success in the upcoming midterm elections is largely still an open question, the guidance could have more immediate consequences in the Trump administration’s fight with the American Bar Association over its effort to subpoena Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s personal lawyer and a longtime informal adviser.

The ABA is presently challenging in federal court what it calls Trump’s “law firm intimidation policy,” including his executive orders issued in the first months of his presidency targeting major firms and agreements with others that sought to avoid similar action. The ABA has sought White House and Epshteyn communications related to the orders and the law firm agreements.

The administration has argued that Epshteyn-related communications are protected by the “presidential communications privilege” and has asked a judge to block the discovery request, according to a July 2 filing on the court docket. Separately, the DOJ has also subpoenaed the firms for communications involving Epshteyn.

TRUMP TRADE ADVISER SEEKS FULL COURT REHEARING IN JAN. 6 COMMITTEE CONTEMPT CASE

Those subpoenas do not require the firms to turn material over to the ABA. But they could allow the administration to argue that the firms are a possible alternative source of nonprivileged information and that the court need not decide the executive-privilege question to resolve the ABA’s discovery request. The ABA could counter that records held by the firms are not an adequate substitute for testimony or White House communications.

Epshteyn is not a government official, but he has served as a liaison with private law firms that reached agreements with the White House. Nine firms collectively pledged roughly $940 million in free legal services for mutually agreed-upon causes.