The Oyez Project: Rehnquist: Separation of Powers Arguments

Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 4

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:00:00 -0500

In January 2001, President Bush created an advisory committee on energy policy headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. After the group issued its recommendations five months later, Judicial Watch, a non-profit government watchdog group, filed suit in federal district court. The Sierra Club, an environmentalist organization, later filed a nearly identical suit that was joined with the Judicial Watch suit. The two organizations alleged that the advisory committee had violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) by not making public all the documents that it had generated. While FACA exempts committees composed entirely of federal officials, Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club argued that the exemption did not apply because private lobbyists had participated in the energy committee's meetings.

Cheney and the advisory group asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that it violated the Constitutional separation of powers by requiring judicial oversight of internal executive branch deliberations. The district court refused.

The government then sought summary judgment of the case (without the discovery process) based on a few administrative documents that it claimed showed that only federal officials had worked on the group. The district court denied this request as well, and the government appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The appeals court refused to grant summary judgment, arguing that it could not yet rule on the separation of powers argument. The government then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 4

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 4

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Oral Argument), Part 4 of 4

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

City of Boerne v. Flores (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 4

Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:00:00 -0500

The Archbishop of San Antonio sued local zoning authorities for violating his rights under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), by denying him a permit to expand his church in Boerne, Texas. Boerne's zoning authorities argued that the Archbishop's church was located in a historic preservation district governed by an ordinance forbidding new construction, and that the RFRA was unconstitutional insofar as it sought to override this local preservation ordinance. On appeal from the Fifth Circuit's reversal of a District Court's finding against Archbishop Flores, the Court granted Boerne's request for certiorari.

City of Boerne v. Flores (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 4

Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

City of Boerne v. Flores (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 4

Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

City of Boerne v. Flores (Oral Argument), Part 4 of 4

Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Clinton v. City of New York (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 3

Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:00:00 -0500

This case consolidates two separate challenges to the constitutionality of two cancellations, made by President William J. Clinton, under the Line Item Veto Act ("Act"). In the first, the City of New York, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York. In the second, the Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives. After a district court held the Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on expedited appeal.

Clinton v. City of New York (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 3

Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Clinton v. City of New York (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 3

Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Clinton v. Jones (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 3

Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Paula Corbin Jones sued President Bill Clinton. She alleged that while she was an Arkansas state employee, she suffered several "abhorrent" sexual advances from then Arkansas Governor Clinton. Jones claimed that her continued rejection of Clinton's advances ultimately resulted in punishment by her state supervisors. Following a District Court's grant of Clinton's request that all matters relating to the suit be suspended, pending a ruling on his prior request to have the suit dismissed on grounds of presidential immunity, Clinton sought to invoke his immunity to completely dismiss the Jones suit against him. While the District Judge denied Clinton's immunity request, the judge ordered the stay of any trial in the matter until after Clinton's Presidency. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal denial but reversed the trial deferment ruling since it would be a "functional equivalent" to an unlawful grant of temporary presidential immunity.

Clinton v. Jones (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 3

Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Clinton v. Jones (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 3

Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Morrison v. Olson (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 5