Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05011/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05011-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

*Circuit Judge Garland did not participate in this matter. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed May 6, 1997

No. 96-5011

ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

DONNA E. SHALALA, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 94cv01003)

ON APPELLEES' SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge, WALD, SILBERMAN, 

WILLIAMS, GINSBURG, SENTELLE, HENDERSON, RANDOLPH, 

ROGERS, TATEL, and GARLAND,

* Circuit Judges.

USCA Case #96-5011 Document #270305 Filed: 05/06/1997 Page 1 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

O R D E R

Appellees' Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc, and the 

response thereto, have been circulated to the full court. The 

taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the 

judges of the court in regular active service did not vote in 

favor of the suggestion. Upon consideration of the foregoing 

it is,

ORDERED, by the Court, that the suggestion be denied.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: 

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

Circuit Judges WALD and TATEL would grant the suggestion.

Separate statement filed by Circuit Judge SILBERMAN, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc.

Separate statement filed by Circuit Judge WALD, dissenting 

from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which Circuit Judge

TATEL joins.

USCA Case #96-5011 Document #270305 Filed: 05/06/1997 Page 2 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

SILBERMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: The government and the National Academy 

of Sciences' (NAS) basic argument for rehearing is that we 

improperly relied on the Supreme Court's discussion in Public Citizen v. United States Dep't of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 

(1989), of the quasi-public characteristics of organizations 

whose advisory committees are covered by FACA if created 

for and employed by the federal government (therefore "utilized"). This discussion is said to be "mere dicta," not at all 

binding on lower courts. Therefore whether an advisory 

committee is created by a quasi-public organization or not, it 

is only covered by FACA as "utilized" by the government if it 

is subject to the government's management and control, 

which is a separate test that we have developed to deal 

specifically with advisory committees that are not formed by 

"quasi-public" organizations. See Washington Legal Found. 

v. United States Sentencing Comm'n, 17 F.3d 1446, 1450-51 

(1994); Food Chem. News v. Young, 900 F.2d 328, 332-33 

(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 846 (1990). I think our 

opinion makes quite clear why the Court's discussion cannot 

be regarded as dicta. It is instead the core logic of the 

Court's effort to determine the meaning of the word "utilize" 

as used in FACA.

It is worth adding in response to the petition, however, that 

if the Supreme Court had meant to limit all advisory committees covered by the Act because they are "utilized" (if not 

established) by the government to those actually managed 

and controlled by the government, there would have been no 

need for the Court to have explained at length that in its view 

Congress had committees of quasi-public organizations in 

mind when it referred to "utilized" by the government. It 

would have been quite sufficient to have simply held that the 

ABA Standing Committee was not "utilized" by the government because it was not managed or controlled by the 

government. Nor would we have said in Food Chemical,

interpreting Public Citizen, that the advisory committee 

USCA Case #96-5011 Document #270305 Filed: 05/06/1997 Page 3 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1 The NAS contends that FACA thrusts upon its advisory 

committees certain burdensome requirements, including that its 

committee membership be "balanced." But the statutory provisions 

that the NAS cites for the latter point are inapplicable to it; section 

5(b)(2) only covers "legislation establishing or authorizing the establishment of any advisory committee...." And section 5(c) similarly 

deals with advisory committees "creat[ed]" by the President, agency 

heads, or other federal officials. As appellees' acknowledge, the 

Guide Committee was established exclusively by the NAS. 

there was neither " "amenable to [any] management' " by an 

agency nor " "by [any] semiprivate entity the Federal Government helped bring into being.' " 900 F.2d at 333 (quoting 

Public Citizen, 491 U.S. at 458, 463).

Accordingly, appellees' contention that the Supreme 

Court's reasoning is to be disregarded in light of the undesirable policy consequences of imposing FACA on the NAS 

committees1is equivalent to arguing that the reasoning of 

Supreme Court opinions should be treated by the lower 

courts generally as dicta, akin perhaps to Justice Scalia's view 

of the legislative history of statutes. Admittedly, the Supreme Court often seems to ignore the essential reasoning of 

its own opinions when it wishes to reach a desired policy 

outcome, but I would not have thought that a lower court 

(perhaps any court) is free, legitimately, to do so.

USCA Case #96-5011 Document #270305 Filed: 05/06/1997 Page 4 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

WALD, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judge TATEL joins 

dissenting from the denial of rehearing in banc: Because I 

believe this is a case of major consequence, affecting as it 

does the transparency of the deliberations and the procedures 

of hundreds of committees set up under the auspices of the 

National Academy of Sciences, and because I also believe the 

issue of statutory construction is a close and difficult one not 

necessarily controlled by the admittedly relevant dicta contained in Public Citizen v. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 

(1989), I would hear the case in banc.

USCA Case #96-5011 Document #270305 Filed: 05/06/1997 Page 5 of 5