OCTOBER TERM, 2003
367
Syllabus
CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.
CERTIORI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 03–475.
Argued April 27, 2004—Decided June 24, 2004
The President established the National Energy Policy Development Group (Group) to give him advice and make recommendations on energy policy, assigning a number of federal agency heads and assistants to serve as Group members and authorizing the Vice President, as Group chairman, to include other federal officers as appropriate. After the Group issued a final report and, according to the Government, terminated all operations, respondents filed these separate actions, later consolidated in the District Court, alleging that the Group had not complied with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which, inter alia, imposes a variety of open meeting and disclosure requirements on entities meeting the definition of "advisory committee." As relevant here, such a committee is an entity or "subgroup. . ., which is . . . established or utilized by the President, . . . exclud[ing] . . . any committee . . . composed wholly of full time, or permanent part time, [federal] officers or employees." 5 U.S.C. App. § 2(B)(i). The complaint alleged that, because nonfederal employees and private lobbyists regularly attended and fully participated in the Group's nonpublic meetings as de facto Group members, the Group could not benefit from the § 2(B) exemption and was therefore subject to FACA's requirements. The suit sought declaratory relief and an injunction requiring the defendants—including the Vice President and the Government officials serving on the Group—to produce all materials allegedly subject to FACA's requirements.
Among its rulings, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to some of them, but denied it as to others. The Court held that FACA's substantive requirements could be enforced against the Vice President and the other Government participants under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S C. § 1361, and against the agency defendants under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. It deferred ruling on whether the FACA disclosure duty was sufficiently clear and nondiscretionary for mandamus to issue. It also deferred ruling on the Government's contention that to disregard the § 2(B) exemption and apply FACA to the Group would violate separation of powers principles
