- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Court Rules Li Rui Collection To Remain At The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Hoover Institution and Stanford University successfully defend Li's wishes to make his personal archives publicly available for preservation and study.
Apr. 1, 2026 at 2:25am
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
A district court in Oakland, California, has ruled to uphold the expressed wishes of Li Rui, a former secretary to Mao Zedong, to have his personal archives made publicly available for preservation and study at the Hoover Institution Library & Archives at Stanford University. The Hoover Institution and Stanford University undertook more than five years of legal proceedings to defend Li's right to have his collection made available for study by scholars, historians and the public.
Why it matters
Li Rui's collection is considered one of the most valuable firsthand accounts on the history of modern China, providing a rare insider's perspective from a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party. The court's decision ensures this important historical material will remain freely accessible for research and study, rather than potentially being censored or banned if returned to China.
The details
The Hoover Institution and Stanford University filed a Quiet Title Action in federal court to establish their rightful ownership of the Li Rui materials, and joined with Li's daughter, Li Nanyang, to defend against claims brought by another individual, Zhang Yuzhen, to prohibit Hoover's possession and use of these materials. The court ruled in favor of Stanford, finding that Li Nanyang's possession and donation of the collection was lawful and in accordance with Li Rui's wishes.
- The legal proceedings to defend the collection lasted more than 5 years.
- The court issued its ruling on March 31, 2026.
The players
Hoover Institution
A public policy think tank and library founded in 1919 at Stanford University, with one of the most extensive collections on modern Chinese history in the United States.
Stanford University
The university that houses the Hoover Institution and undertook the legal proceedings to defend the Li Rui collection.
Li Rui
A former secretary to Mao Zedong who entrusted his personal archives, including diaries, correspondence, and other materials, to the Hoover Institution with the intention of making them publicly available for study.
Li Nanyang
The daughter of Li Rui who joined Stanford in defending the possession and use of her father's collection by the Hoover Institution.
Zhang Yuzhen
An individual who brought claims against Stanford and Li Nanyang in an attempt to prohibit the Hoover Institution's possession and use of the Li Rui materials.
What they’re saying
“This decision ensures one of the most valuable firsthand accounts on the history of modern China will be freely available for study.”
— Condoleezza Rice, Director of the Hoover Institution and 66th Secretary of State
“Li Rui's collection is one of the most important insider accounts of the history of modern China freely available to researchers.”
— Eric Wakin, Deputy Director of the Hoover Institution and Everett and Jane Hauck Director of Library & Archives
“Li Rui was very clear in his diaries and conversations that he intended for his historic documents to be preserved and maintained by Hoover's Library and Archives”
— Mark Litvack, Pillsbury partner who led Stanford's trial team
What’s next
The court has ordered Stanford to submit a proposed form of judgment, approved by all parties, within 14 days of the ruling.
The takeaway
This case highlights the importance of preserving and providing access to firsthand historical accounts, even when they may be politically sensitive, in order to further academic research and public understanding of significant events and figures in modern history.


