Cases by Issue - Freedom of Information Act

Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-475

Petitioner

Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States District Court for the District of Columbia, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

542 U.S. 367 (2004)

Granted

Monday, December 15, 2003

Argued

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 2004

Advocates

Alan B. Morrison (argued the cause for Respondent Sierra Club)

Theodore B. Olson (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Paul J. Orfanedes (argued the cause for Respondent Judicial Watch, Inc.)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Does the Federal Advisory Committee Act authorize judicial review of executive branch deliberations through a broad discovery process that allows a private organization to review internal documents of high-level advisors to the President? If such review is authorized by FACA, does it violate the Constitutional doctrine of separation of powers?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Cheney, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court sent the case back to the D.C. Court of Appeals, arguing that the appellate court should have considered separation-of-powers claims and was wrong to conclude it lacked authority to order District Court discovery to stop. Such an order (mandamus) to stop discovery proceedings should be considered because those proceedings, "by virtue of their overbreadth," could interfere with presidential activity. Further, the appellate court misinterpreted U.S. v. Nixon to mean that the government needed to assert executive privilege for separation-of-powers objections to be considered.

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-572

Petitioner

Intel Corporation

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

542 U.S. 241 (2004)

Granted

Monday, November 10, 2003

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

Decided

Monday, June 21, 2004

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (argued the cause for Respondent, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)

Carter G. Phillips (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Patrick Lynch (argued the cause for Respondent)

Seth P. Waxman (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) filed a complaint against Intel with the European Commission, alleging that Intel was using its size to unfairly dominate the computer microprocessor market. Complaints filed with the European Commission are first reviewed by the commission's directorate general, which does fact- finding to decide whether or not to pursue the complaint. AMD asked the directorate to review documents containing some of Intel's trade secrets from a separate American court case involving Intel. The directorate declined.

Because European law did not provide a way for AMD to gain access to the documents, AMD filed suit against Intel in United States federal district court seeking access to the documents so that it could use them to support its complaint. The suit was filed under Title 28, Section 1782 of U.S. Code, which allows (but does not require) federal district courts to give "interested persons" access to material for proceedings before "foreign or international tribunal(s)." AMD argued that, though the directorate was only a fact-finding body, the case could eventually be appealed to a trial court and was therefore covered under section 1782. Further, it argued that the directorate's unwillingness to demand the documents was irrelevant. Intel, on the other hand, argued that the directorate was not a "foreign or international tribunal" and that the federal district court therefore did not have the authority to compel Intel to release the documents. It also argued that the directorate's unwillingness to compel production of the documents should preclude U.S. action.

The district court sided with Intel, ruling that the directorate's investigation was not a foreign tribunal and that the court therefore could not give AMD access to the documents. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously reversed the decision. After the case was accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the European Commission filed a brief in the case supporting Intel's position that the directorate was not a foreign tribunal.

Question

Does Section 1782 of Title 28 of U.S. Code authorize a federal district court to compel the release of material for use in a "foreign tribunal" when the foreign tribunal itself is unwilling to demand production of the material? Does Section 1782 authorize a federal district court to compel the release of material for a fact-finding investigation by the directorate general of the European Commission on the theory that the information may eventually lead to an investigation by a foreign tribunal?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1782

Yes and Yes. In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court ruled that just because a foreign tribunal was unwilling to demand certain documents did not mean that it would be unwilling to accept them if provided to them by other means. By permitting, but not forcing, American judges to allow discovery of certain documents, Congress allowed judges to exercise their discretion to decide whether a foreign tribunal would be receptive to the the documents at question. The Court also ruled that it would be impractical to limit the fact-finding to only the actual trial before a foreign tribunal because, in cases like this one, the foreign tribunal does not gather evidence itself but instead relies on the evidence presented to the investigatory commission (in this case the directorate general). In order to make the evidence available for the tribunal, therefore, it would be necessary to present it first to the commission.

National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

02-954

Petitioner

National Archives and Records Administration

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allan J. Favish, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

541 U.S. 157 (2004)

Granted

Monday, May 5, 2003

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 2003

Decided

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Advocates

Patricia A. Millett (argued the cause for Petitioner)

James Hamilton (argued the cause for Respondents Anthony and Moody in support of petitioner)

Allan J. Favish (argued the cause for Respondents)

Facts of the Case

Vincent Foster, a high-ranking White House lawyer involved in the investigation of possible fraud by the Clinton family in the Whitewater real estate venture, was found dead in a Virginia park. Two government investigations subsequently found that the death had been a suicide. Allan Favish questioned the findings of the government investigations, claiming that they were part of a government cover-up of murder. Under the Freedom of Information Act, Favish requested access to 150 photos of Foster's body in the park and during the autopsy. He later reduced his request to 129 photos.

The government initially denied him access to all the photos, but eventually gave him access to 118 of them. It withheld the rest, arguing that the privacy interest of Foster's family members in relation to Foster's death trumped the public interest served by providing Favish access to the photos. The government stated that the photos were very graphic and that releasing them would upset the family. Favish countered by arguing that the family did not have a relevant privacy interest; the only person whose privacy interests would be violated by the release of the photos was Foster, Favish argued, and Foster's death had rendered him incapable of exercising that interest.

After a series of appeals in which a Ninth Circuit panel held that the Foster family's right to privacy was relevant to the case but that the district court must look at the specific photos in order to weigh the privacy rights against Favish's right to access government information, the Ninth Circuit eventually decided that Favish should be given access to all but four of the photos. The government, joined by the Foster family, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Question

Do family members of a man who apparently committed suicide have a privacy right that justifies the government's withholding autopsy photos from a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for National Archives and Records Administration, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that the Foster family's interest in privacy outweighed the public interest in seeing pictures from Vincent Foster's death scene. The public interest could only trump privacy interests if Favish could present evidence that the government might have acted improperly. Favish failed to do so. The Court acknowledged that citizens seeking access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act normally need not explain why they seek the information. The act, however, exempts from disclosure records that would present an unwarranted invasion of privacy. In ruling that the act protected the privacy of the Foster family, the Court rejected Favish's argument that the act only protected Vincent Foster's privacy (an interest that Favish argued died with Foster).

Dept of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protect. Assoc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-1871

Petitioner

Dept of Interior

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Klamath Water Users Protect. Assoc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

532 U.S. 1 (2001)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 2001

Decided

Monday, March 5, 2001

Advocates

Malcolm L. Stewart (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Andrew Hitchings (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) administers the Klamath Irrigation Project (Project), which uses water from the Klamath River Basin to irrigate parts of Oregon and California. In order for the Department to provide water allocations among competing uses and users, it asked the Klamath and other Indian Tribes (Basin Tribes or Tribes) to consult with Reclamation. A memorandum of understanding solidified this relationship. When the Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs (Bureau) filed claims on behalf of the Klamath Tribe in Oregon to allocate water rights, the two exchanged written memorandums on the appropriate scope of the claims submitted by the Government for the benefit of the Tribe. Afterwards, the Klamath Water Users Protective Association (Association), a nonprofit group, whose members receive water from the Project and, generally, have interests adverse to the tribal interest because of the scarcity of water, filed requests with the Bureau under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to gain access to communications between the Bureau and the Basin Tribes. Some documents were turned over, but the Bureau held other documents under the deliberative process privileges incorporated in FOIA Exemption 5, which exempts from disclosure "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency." The Association sued to compel release of the documents. The District Court granted the government summary judgment. In reversing, the Court of Appeals ruled out any application of Exemption 5 on the ground that the Tribes with whom the Department has a consulting relationship have a direct interest in the subject matter of the consultations.

Question

Are documents shared between the Klamath and other Indian Tribes and the Department of the Interior, which address tribal interests subject to state and federal proceedings to determine water allocations, exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, as " inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters?"

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Klamath Water Users Protect. Assoc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court that there is no exemption under FOIA for the correspondence between the Tribes and the Bureau. Because the Klamath Tribe advocated its own positions in the water allocation proceedings, the communications between it and the Bureau did not equate to the role that personnel fulfils, in that personnel do not represent their own interests. Therefore, the documents were not exempt from public disclosure as inter-agency or intra-agency communications. "All of this boils down to requesting that we read an 'Indian trust' exemption into the statute, a reading that is out of the question," wrote Justice Souter for the Court.

United States Department Of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-1223

Petitioner

United States Department Of Defense et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Labor Relations Authority et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

510 U.S. 487 (1994)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1993

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1994

Advocates

David M. Smith (on behalf of the Respondents)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States Department Of Defense, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

United States Department Of Justice v. Landano

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-2054

Petitioner

United States Department Of Justice et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Landano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

508 U.S. 165 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1993

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1993

Advocates

Neil Marc Mullin (on behalf of the Respondent)

John F. Daly (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Landano, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

United States Department Of State v. Ray

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-747

Petitioner

United States Department Of State

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ray et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 164 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, October 9, 1991

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1991

Advocates

Michael Dean Ray (on behalf of the Respondents)

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States Department Of State, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1083

Petitioner

John Doe Agency

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

John Doe Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

493 U.S. 146 (1989)

Argued

Monday, October 2, 1989

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1989

Advocates

Milton Eisenberg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Edwin S. Kneedler (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for John Doe Agency, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Department Of Justice v. Tax Analysts

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-782

Petitioner

Department Of Justice

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tax Analysts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

492 U.S. 136 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 24, 1989

Decided

Friday, June 23, 1989

Advocates

William A. Dobrovir (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Tax Analysts, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Public Citizen v. Department Of Justice

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-429

Appellee

Department Of Justice

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Public Citizen

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 88-494

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 440 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1989

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Department Of Justice, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 1

None

U.S. Dept. Of Justice v. Reporters Committee

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1379

Petitioner

U.S. Dept. Of Justice

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reporters Committee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 749 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, December 7, 1988

Decided

Wednesday, March 22, 1989

Advocates

Roy T. Englert, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Kevin T. Baine (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

CBS requested the criminal identification records of Charles Medico from the FBI. When the FBI refused the request, a CBS news correspondent and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) challenged the denial as a violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). RCFP claimed that since Medico was an identified organized crime figure with corrupt ties to a United States Congressman, Medico's criminal record was a matter of "public record" and "interest." On appeal from an unfavorable appellate decision, the Supreme Court granted the U.S. Department of Justice certiorari.

Question

Is a refusal to disclose an individual's personal FBI crime record to a third party justifiable under the "personal privacy" invasion exemption of the Freedom of Information Act?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for U.S. Dept. Of Justice, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that an individual's interest in nondisclosure of any criminal records that the FBI might have on him or her is precisely the sort of "personal privacy" that Congress intended to protect when it enacted FOIA exemptions. Balancing public knowledge interests against privacy considerations, the Court explained that RCFP's request was overly broad. The request sought access to all FBI records on Medico, rather than specific information concerning his file. Moreover, the Court stated that public interest in criminal record information is not increased simply because the requesting party is a news agency.

Church Of Scientology Of California v. Irs

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-472

Petitioner

Church Of Scientology Of California

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Irs

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 9 (1987)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, November 10, 1987

Advocates

Michael Lee Hertzberg (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Albert G. Lauber, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Irs, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Societe Nat. Ind. Aero. v. U.S. Dist. Court

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1695

Petitioner

Societe Nat. Ind. Aero.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Dist. Court

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 522 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1987

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (on behalf of the United States and Securities and Exchange Commission, as amicus curiae)

John W. Ford (on behalf of the petitioners)

Richard H. Doyle (on behalf of the respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Societe Nat. Ind. Aero., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Treaty

None

Cia v. Sims

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1075

Petitioner

Cia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sims

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 83-1249

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 159 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, December 4, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, April 16, 1985

Advocates

Paul Alan Levy (on behalf of respondents in No. 83-1075 and petitioners in No. 83-1249)

Richard K. Willard (on behalf of petitioners in No. 83-1075 and respondents in 83-1249)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Cia, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

FCC v. ITT World Communications, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-371

Petitioner

Federal Communications Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

ITT World Communications, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

466 U.S. 463 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1984

Advocates

Grant S. Lewis (on behalf of Respondents)

Albert G. Lauber, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for FCC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1616

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Weber Aircraft Corp.

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 792 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Advocates

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner)

Jacques E. Soiret (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Ftc v. Grolier Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-372

Petitioner

Ftc

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Grolier Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

462 U.S. 19 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, March 29, 1983

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1983

Advocates

Daniel S. Mason (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ftc, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Department Of State v. Washington Post Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-535

Petitioner

Department Of State

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Washington Post Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 595 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, March 31, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1982

Advocates

David E. Kendall (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Department Of State, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Fbi v. Abramson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1735

Petitioner

Fbi

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Abramson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 615 (1982)

Argued

Monday, January 11, 1982

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1982

Advocates

Sharon T. Nelson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Fbi, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Baldrige v. Shapiro

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1436

Petitioner

Baldrige

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shapiro

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-1781

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 345 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1982

Advocates

George C. Cerrone, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners in No. 80-1781)

David H. Ben-Asher (on behalf of the Respondent in No. 80-1436)

Elliott Schulder (on behalf of Petitioners in No. 80-1436 and Respondents in No. 80-1781)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Baldrige, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Weinberger v. Catholic Action Of Hawaii

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1377

Petitioner

Weinberger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Catholic Action Of Hawaii

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 139 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1981

Advocates

Nancy Stearns (on behalf of Respondents)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Upjohn Co. v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-886

Petitioner

Upjohn Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 383 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, November 5, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Advocates

Daniel M. Gribbon (on behalf of Petitioners)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Upjohn Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. Gte Sylvania

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-521

Petitioner

Consumer Product Safety Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Gte Sylvania

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

447 U.S. 102 (1980)

Argued

Monday, April 14, 1980

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gte Sylvania, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 2055

None

Gte Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1248

Petitioner

Gte Sylvania, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Consumers Union

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 375 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, November 28, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, March 19, 1980

Advocates

Alan B. Morrison (on behalf of the Respondents)

Harry L. Shniderman (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Federal Respondent supporting Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gte Sylvania, Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Kissinger v. Reporters Committee

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1088

Petitioner

Kissinger

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reporters Committee

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 78-1217

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 136 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 1979

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1980

Advocates

Robert M. Sussman (on behalf of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press)

William A. Dobrovir (on behalf of the Military Audit Project)

David Ginsburg (on behalf of the Petitioner Kissinger)

William Alsup (on behalf of the Federal parties)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Kissinger, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Forsham v. Harris

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1118

Petitioner

Forsham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Harris

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 169 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 31, 1979

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1980

Advocates

Thomas E. Plank (on behalf of the Respondent Klimt)

Michael R. Sonnenreich (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Respondent Harris)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Harris, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1387

Petitioner

Federal Open Market Committee

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Merrill

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 340 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, December 6, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Federal Open Market Committee, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Chrysler Corp. v. Brown

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-922

Petitioner

Chrysler Corp.

Respondent

Brown

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 281 (1979)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Chrysler Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-911

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 214 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, April 26, 1978

Decided

Thursday, June 15, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Dept. Of Air Force v. Rose

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-489

Petitioner

Dept. Of Air Force

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rose

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

425 U.S. 352 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, October 8, 1975

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rose, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Faa Administrator v. Robertson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-450

Petitioner

Faa Administrator

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robertson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

422 U.S. 255 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, April 15, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, June 24, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Faa Administrator, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1233

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 132 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1975

Decided

Monday, April 28, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1316

Petitioner

Renegotiation Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Grumman Aircraft

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

421 U.S. 168 (1975)

Argued

Tuesday, January 14, 1975

Decided

Monday, April 28, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Renegotiation Board, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-822

Petitioner

Renegotiation Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bannercraft Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

415 U.S. 1 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, October 17, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Renegotiation Board, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

Epa v. Mink

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-909

Petitioner

Epa

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mink

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

410 U.S. 73 (1973)

Argued

Thursday, November 9, 1972

Decided

Monday, January 22, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Epa, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

None

St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

St. Regis Paper Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 208 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, November 9, 1961

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Trade Commission

None

Bibles v. Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-713

Petitioner

Bibles

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

519 U.S. 355 (1997)

Decided

Tuesday, February 18, 1997

Facts of the Case

The Oregon Natural Desert Association filed a request with the Oregon Bureau of Land Management in order to obtain the names and addresses of people who received a newsletter that provided information about the Bureau's activities and plans affecting the Oregon desert. Invoking Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Bureau refused to release any portion of the list. Exemption 6 exempts from disclosure files "similar" to personnel and medical files. Subsequently, the association filed an action in District Court under the FOIA to obtain the list. The court ordered the release. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that there was a substantial public interest in knowing to whom the government was directing information and providing those persons with additional information from other sources that did not share the Bureau's views.

Question

Must the Oregon Bureau of Land Management release a list of people who receive its newsletter under the Freedom of Information Act?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bibles, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Freedom of Information, Sunshine, or Privacy Act

No. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Court of Appeals engaged in an incorrect public-interest analysis in determining whether the Oregon Bureau of Land Management's mailing list was exempt from disclosure under Exemption 6 of the FOIA. In accordance with previous case history, the Court concluded that "the only relevant public interest in the FOIA balancing analysis was the extent to which disclosure of the information sought would shed light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties or otherwise let citizens know what the government was up to." The Court additionally concluded that the purpose of requests have no bearing on disclosure.