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, 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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Antonin Scalia</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1986 to 2016

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. Michael Luttig</span> American jurist (born 1954)

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Danny Julian Boggs</span> American judge

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David S. Tatel</span> American judge (born 1942)

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">A. Raymond Randolph</span> American federal judge (born 1943)

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patricia Millett</span> American federal judge (born 1963)

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."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ketanji Brown Jackson</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2022

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kenneth Geller</span> American lawyer

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sri Srinivasan</span> American judge (born 1967)

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert L. Wilkins</span> American federal judge (born 1963)

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neomi Rao</span> American federal judge (born 1973)

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julius N. Richardson</span> American judge (born 1976)

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.

References

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