Cheney v. United States District Court

Last updated
Cheney v. United States District Court
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 27, 2004
Decided June 24, 2004
Full case name Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, et al.
Citations542 U.S. 367 ( more )
124 S. Ct. 2576; 159 L. Ed. 2d 459
Case history
PriorIn re Cheney, 334 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2003); cert. granted, 540 U.S. 1088(2003).
SubsequentIn re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
Holding
Case sent back to U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for review.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Breyer, Scalia (Parts I-IV), Thomas (Parts I-IV)
ConcurrenceStevens
Concur/dissentThomas, joined by Scalia
DissentGinsburg, joined by Souter
Laws applied
United States v. Nixon , Clinton v. Jones

Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004), was a 2004 United States Supreme Court case between Vice President Dick Cheney and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. [1] The case came as an appeal after the lower District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Cheney to disclose some of his records that would show how his National Energy Policy Development Group developed its recommendations. Cheney appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, but the Appeals Court rejected the appeal. In a 7–2 decision, the Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. [2] [3]

Contents

Prior history

The case began when the conservative Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act requests about the National Energy Policy Development Group, which Cheney headed, in 2001–2002. [4] [5] These requests were denied. [5]

Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club then sued, arguing the refusal a violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), which requires committees set up by the president or by federal agencies to provide advice must conduct their business in public. The exception to this law is committees composed entirely of federal officials and employees, which de jure Cheney's committee was. [4]

However, Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club argued that because so many energy industry lobbyists were so deeply involved in the committee's work, they were effectively members. Under this, the committee would have to obey FACA. In 1993, the D.C. Circuit ruled in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons v. Clinton , that in such a situation, FACA does apply. [2]

In July 2002, D.C. district judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that Sierra Club and Judicial Watch deserved to know whether private citizens had taken part in the work of the task force to a large enough degree sufficient to bring the task force under the umbrella of the law. [4]

Rather than accepting the ruling, the vice president appealed it to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that complying would force him reveal information that, under law, he does not have to reveal. Cheney also argued that the order violated separation of powers principles. [4]

The Court of Appeals ruled that Cheney did have to turn over information. [6] Cheney appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. [3]

Case

The question the Court was debating was whether or not the D.C. District Court should have rejected the request from the Vice President to block disclosure of records from his energy policy task force.

The Court ruled 7–2 that the lower appeals court had acted "prematurely" and sent the case back to the court. [3]

The Court did not rule on whether or not FACA should or should not apply to the task force, and left to the Court of Appeals. [2]

Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, agreed to by four other justices. Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Scalia would have had the case end there with Cheney not having to disclose any information. [2] Ruth Bader Ginsburg was joined by David H. Souter in dissenting, arguing the Supreme Court should let the case proceed in the District Court. [2] [3]

Scalia conflict of interest controversy

The case received press attention when Antonin Scalia refused to recuse himself from the case, despite having hunted ducks with Cheney and others while the case was pending in the lower courts. Scalia filed a lengthy statement explaining why he was not recusing himself. In the end, Scalia supported Cheney. [2] [7] [8]

Subsequent history

On May 9, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Vice President's Energy Task Force did not have to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

Supreme Court of the United States Highest court in the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party". The Court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide non-justiciable political questions.

Antonin Scalia United States Supreme Court justice

Antonin Gregory Scalia was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2016. He was described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court's conservative wing. For catalyzing an originalist and textualist movement in American law, he has been described as one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century, and one of the most important justices in the Supreme Court's history. Scalia was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018 by President Donald Trump, and the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University was named in his honor.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit, originally filed as Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. in 2000, led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of religion and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. After an initial decision striking the congressionally added "one nation under God" language, the superseding opinion on denial of rehearing en banc was more limited, holding that compelled recitation of the language by school teachers to students was invalid.

United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights in order to obtain reversal of his conviction by guilty plea. Rule 11, which pertains to criminal prosecutions in United States federal courts only, governs the offering of plea bargains to criminal defendants and the procedures district courts must employ to ensure that the defendant knows of and properly waives his trial-related constitutional rights.

J. Michael Luttig American judge

John Michael Luttig is an American lawyer and a former United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Danny Julian Boggs American judge

Danny Julián Boggs is an American attorney and a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed to the court in 1986 and served as its Chief Judge from September 2003 to August 2009. Boggs was on the short list of President George W. Bush's candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.

John D. Bates American judge

John Deacon Bates is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He was appointed by President George W. Bush in December 2001, and has adjudicated several cases directly affecting the office of the President. Bates served as Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, from July 1, 2013 to January 5, 2015, after which he returned to full-time service as a District Judge.

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice, Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006 and issued a decision on June 19, 2006.

Brent D. Benjamin is an American attorney who previously served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. In 2004, he was the first Republican elected to the West Virginia Supreme Court in more than 80 years, defeating incumbent Justice Warren McGraw. In 2015, the West Virginia Legislature changed the election system for judicial officers to a non-partisan basis. In 2016, Benjamin placed fourth of four serious candidates in the non-partisan election, with 12% of the vote, and left the court in January 2017, to return to private practice.

Larry V. Starcher is a retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. In November 1996, he was elected as a Democrat in a partisan election to the Supreme Court of Appeals. He served as Chief Justice in 1999 and 2003.

Patricia Millett American judge

Patricia Ann Millett is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She formerly headed the Supreme Court practice at the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Millett also was a longtime former assistant to the United States Solicitor General and served as an occasional blogger for SCOTUSblog. At the time of her confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, she had argued 32 cases before the United States Supreme Court. In February 2016 The New York Times identified her as a potential nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse themselves not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."

Ketanji Brown Jackson American judge

Ketanji Brown Jackson is an American lawyer and jurist who is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from 2013 to 2021. Jackson has also been Vice Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission from 2010 to 2014 and a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers since 2016.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.

Robert Leon Wilkins is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Jane Louise Kelly is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Neomi Rao U.S. courts of appeals judge

Neomi Jehangir Rao is an American attorney, jurist, and legal scholar who serves as a Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, having served in the Trump Administration from 2017 to 2019 as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Gregory G. Katsas American judge

Gregory George Katsas is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

References

  1. ↑ Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dean, John W. (5 July 2003). "More litigation will follow on the Cheney energy task force". FindLaw . CNN . Retrieved 28 January 2009.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Greenhouse, Linda (25 June 2004). "Justices' Ruling Postpones Resolution of Cheney Case". The New York Times . Archived from the original on 30 January 2013. Retrieved 28 January 2009.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Greenhouse, Linda (16 December 2003). "Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Will Hear Appeal On Cheney's Energy Panel". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 January 2009.
  5. 1 2 3 "Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Energy Policy Dev. Group, et al". Judicial Watch. Archived from the original on 22 January 2009. Retrieved 28 January 2009.
  6. ↑ In re Cheney, 334F.3d1096 ( D.C. Cir. 2003).
  7. ↑ Lane, Charles (25 June 2004). "High Court Backs Vice President". The Washington Post . Retrieved 28 January 2009.[ permanent dead link ]
  8. ↑ Janofsky, Michael (19 March 2004). "Scalia Refusing to Take Himself Off Cheney Case". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 January 2009.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.