Cheney v. United States District Court | |
---|---|
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. |
Citations | 542 U.S. 367 ( more ) 124 S. Ct. 2576; 159 L. Ed. 2d 459 |
Case history | |
Prior | In re Cheney, 334 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2003); cert. granted, 540 U.S. 1088(2003). |
Subsequent | In 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 | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Breyer; Scalia, Thomas (Parts I–IV) |
Concurrence | Stevens |
Concur/dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia |
Dissent | Ginsburg, 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 U.S. Supreme 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 history of the Supreme Court. Scalia was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018, 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. The words had been added by a 1954 act of Congress that changed the phrase "one nation indivisible" into "one nation under God, indivisible". After an initial decision striking the congressionally added "under God", 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.
In the United States, a federal judge is a judge who serves on a court established under Article Three of the U.S. Constitution. Often called "Article III judges", federal judges include the chief justice and associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, circuit judges of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, district judges of the U.S. District Courts, and judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade.
John Michael Luttig is an American lawyer and jurist who served as a U.S. circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1991 to 2006. Luttig resigned his judgeship in 2006 to become the general counsel of Boeing, a position he held until 2019.
Danny Julian Boggs is an American lawyer 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.
Recusal is the legal process by which a judge, juror, or other adjudicator steps aside from participating in a case due to potential bias, conflict of interest, or appearance of impropriety. This practice is fundamental to ensuring fairness and impartiality in legal proceedings, preserving the integrity of the judiciary, and maintaining public confidence in the legal system. Historical and modern legal frameworks outline specific grounds for recusal, such as personal or financial conflicts of interest, prior involvement in a case, or demonstrated bias. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or decision-maker must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned, and more likely that there is due process.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S.
David Stephen Tatel is an American lawyer who served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Arthur Raymond Randolph is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a senior U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He was appointed to the D.C. Circuit in 1990 by President George H. W. Bush and assumed senior status in 2008.
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.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.
Larry Victor Starcher was an American jurist who was a 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 Ann Millett is an American lawyer and jurist serving since 2013 as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. 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—once the record for a female lawyer. 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 judges 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 Onyika Brown Jackson is an American lawyer and jurist who is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Jackson was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden on February 25, 2022, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn into office that same year. She is the first black woman and the first former federal public defender to serve on the Supreme Court.
Kenneth Steven Geller is a former managing partner of the global law firm Mayer Brown LLP. Prior to that, he served as Deputy Solicitor General of the United States and as an Assistant Special Prosecutor in the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.
Padmanabhan Srikanth "Sri" Srinivasan is an Indian-born American lawyer and jurist serving since 2020 as the chief United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before becoming a federal judge, Srinivasan served as principal deputy solicitor general of the United States and argued 25 cases before the United States Supreme Court. He was also a partner at the law firm O'Melveny & Myers and was a lecturer at Harvard Law School.
Robert Leon Wilkins is an American lawyer and jurist serving as United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He previously served as a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from 2010 to 2014.
Neomi Jehangir Rao is an American jurist and legal scholar serving since 2019 as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She was appointed by President Donald Trump, having served in the Trump Administration from 2017 to 2019 as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. She was previously a professor of law at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School.
Julius Ness "Jay" Richardson is an American judge and lawyer who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He was formerly an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina.