Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-95-05070/USCOURTS-caDC-95-05070-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 

---

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

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 22, 1996 Decided February 23, 1996

No. 95-5070

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. AND 

NATIONAL LEGAL & POLICY CENTER,

APPELLANTS 

v.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, ET AL.,

APPELLEES 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(94cv1688)

Larry E. Klayman argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.

Daryl A. Libowargued the cause for appellees, with whomThomas R. Leuba was on the brief. David

E. Kendall and Nicole K. Seligman were on the brief for appellee Hillary Rodham Clinton. Frank

W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Eric H. Holder, Jr.,

United States Attorney, and Mark B. Stern, Attorney, were on the brief for appelleesJohn M. Quinn

and Stephen D. Potts. Ky E. Kirby was on the brief for appellee Michael Berman.

Before: SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SILBERMAN.

SILBERMAN, Circuit Judge: Judicial Watch appeals the dismissal of its claim that the

Presidential Legal Expense Trust Fund must comply with the requirements of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2 (1982), and must return all funds collected while in violation of the

Act. The district court determined that the Trust is not a federal advisory committee. We affirm.

I. 

President and Mrs. Clinton established the Trust in order to help defray personal legal fees

and related expenses incurred by the President in legal proceedings commenced after he assumed

office but unrelated to any of his official duties. The Trust is administered by nine individuals who

serve without compensation and who are authorized to hold, manage, and invest the funds

contributed and to pay the Clintons' legalfees as necessary. When the Trust was established, several

USCA Case #95-5070 Document #182480 Filed: 02/23/1996 Page 1 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

public announcements were made by White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers and othersto the

effect that defraying these legal expenses was in the best interest of the country and the presidency.

Both before and after the public announcement, attorneys involved in developing the Trust and

members of the Office of Government Ethics(Office) discussed the legal and ethical propriety of the

Trust, and the Office subsequently issued a letter determining that the Trust is proper.

Judicial Watch filed suit against the Trust, the trustees, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Office,

and MichaelBermanwhomJudicial Watch termed a "de facto" trusteeseeking a declaration that

the Trust is an advisory committee and injunctive relief prohibiting further actions by the Trust

pending compliance with the Act and requiring the Trust to return all funds collected. The district

court dismissed the complaints on the groundsthat the Trust is not an advisory committee within the

meaning of the Act because it does not transmit advice on particular public policy matters and its

functions are primarily operational.

II.

The statute defines an advisory committee as including "any committee, board, commission,

council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group ... which is ... established or utilized by

the President ... in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendationsfor the President...." 5 U.S.C.

app. 2 § 3(2). Appellants claim that the Trust easily fits into the broad language of the Act.

Moreover, with an eye to our precedents that have read implicit limitations into that language,

appellants insist that the Trust's functions are primarily advisory and that the Trust was established

for a governmental purpose and provides public policy advice. President and Mrs. Clinton created

the Trust, it is alleged, in order to assist the President in performing his official duties by reducing the

distraction of his financial obligations; and the public statements introducing the Trust reveal its

official, governmentalrole. The Trust and trustees provide advice to the President, as well as to third

parties, on the legality of and the methods for soliciting and distributing funds.

We think the government and the Trust are likely correct that the Trust is not primarily

advisory in nature. Its main purpose would appear to be the collecting and managing of funds, and

therefore even if some advice is forthcoming, the Trust would seem to be outside the statute. See

USCA Case #95-5070 Document #182480 Filed: 02/23/1996 Page 2 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1To the extent this claim rests on the notion that the Trust's determination of the legal and

ethical propriety of its own activitiesi.e., consultation with the Office and discussions with the

President and his advisersconstitutes policy advice, we think the argument unsound. Any

committee must, whether explicitly or implicitly, assess its legal and ethical obligations, but, as

discussed below, such an assessment is not policy advice. Further, such advice generally will not

make a committee, without more, primarily advisory in nature. 

Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. Gaus, 61 F.3d 929, 934 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Public Citizen v.

Commission on the Bicentennial, 622 F. Supp. 753, 757-58 (D.D.C. 1985). But even assuming the

advice given were thought to be the Trust's primary activity, our conclusionthat it is not an

advisorycommitteewould be the same because the advice called for is not directed to governmental

policy.

That the statute is only intended to reach committeesthat offer policy advice is apparent from

the requirement that such a committee's membership be "fairly balanced in terms ofthe points of view

represented" and not "inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special

interests." 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 5(b)(2)-(3). Whether or not that provision is judicially enforceable, see

Public Citizen v. National Advisory Comm., 886 F.2d 419, 426 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (compare

Silberman,J., concurring with per curiam), it surely indicatesthat Congress had in mind committees,

the members of which would provide varying points of view; and that necessarily implies debatable

policy issues. Accordingly, we have recognized that the Act is limited to committees that provide

advice on an identified governmental policy. See Sofamor, 61 F.3d at 935-37; Association of Am.

Physicians v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898, 914 (D.C. Cir. 1993); Nader v. Baroody, 396 F. Supp. 1231,

1234 (D.D.C. 1975).

Nevertheless, appellants contend that the advice given to the President as to the ethics and

legality of methods to solicit funds for his legal expenses has an undeniable governmental, and

therefore public policy, interest. In part, their argument is based on the notion that any private service

to the President allows him to devote more time to governmental affairs. We think that argument,

to put it kindly, sweeps too far; it suggests that a group that advised the President where to find a

summer house would be an advisory committee. But in part, appellants claim that there is an obvious

public interest in confining the President's solicitations of funds to legal and ethical means.1 That is,

USCA Case #95-5070 Document #182480 Filed: 02/23/1996 Page 3 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

of course, true, but even assuming that the Trust providessuch advisory services, it cannot be thought

public policy advice.

The term "policy" implies choice; advice on an identified government policy is necessarily

advice which favors one of alternative positions or courses of action. The function of a group giving

such advice is thus to aid the decision makers in choosing the direction of government behavior. In

contrast, whether a particular government official's or his agents' activities comply with legal and

ethical obligations does not present such a free choice. We normally assume that there is an objective

answer to whethersuch person's actions are legal or ethicaleven though we might disagree on what

it isand that answer constrains choice. Advice on the legal or ethical implications of presidential

fund-raising for personal purposes therefore does not involve "policy," even though the problems

presented might implicate governmental concerns.

* * * *

The district court's dismissal of the complaint is therefore

Affirmed.

USCA Case #95-5070 Document #182480 Filed: 02/23/1996 Page 4 of 4