Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-08-05188/USCOURTS-caDC-08-05188-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Appellant
Judicial Watch, Inc.
Amicus Curiae for Appellant
Office of Administration
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 14, 2008 Decided May 19, 2009 

No. 08-5188 

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, 

APPELLANT

v. 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION, 

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 1:07-cv-00964) 

Anne L. Weismann argued the cause for appellant. With 

her on the briefs was Melanie T. Sloan. 

Paul J. Orfanedes, Dale L. Wilcox, and James F. 

Peterson were on the brief for amicus curiae Judicial Watch, 

Inc., in support of appellant. 

Thomas M. Bondy, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 

argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were 

Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey A. 

Taylor, U.S. Attorney, and Mark B. Stern, Attorney. Mark R. 

Freeman and Michael S. Raab, Attorneys, and R. Craig 

Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered appearances. 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 1 of 13
2 

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge, 

and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH. 

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: This is the latest in a line of 

cases in which we are asked to decide whether a unit within 

the Executive Office of the President is covered by the 

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006). In this 

case, we conclude that the Office of Administration is not 

because it performs only operational and administrative tasks 

in support of the President and his staff and therefore, under 

our precedent, lacks substantial independent authority. 

I. 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 

(CREW) alleges that the Office of Administration (OA) 

discovered in October 2005 that entities in the Executive 

Office of the President (EOP) had lost millions of White 

House e-mails. In April 2007, CREW made a FOIA request of 

OA asking for information about the missing e-mails. CREW 

sought records about the EOP’s e-mail management system, 

reports analyzing potential problems with the system, records 

of retained e-mails and possibly missing ones, documents 

discussing plans to find the missing e-mails, and proposals to 

institute a new e-mail record system. OA agreed to produce 

the records but asked CREW to either limit the scope of the 

request or set a new timetable, protesting that it could not 

meet FOIA’s timeframe for expedited requests given the 

broad scope of the inquiry. CREW responded that its request 

was not so broad as OA supposed and held fast to its demand 

that the documents be produced within FOIA’s time limits. 

When the deadline passed and OA had not turned over the 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 2 of 13
3 

records or even provided an anticipated date for doing so, 

CREW filed this action in May 2007. 

In June 2007, the parties agreed to a timeline for 

producing the records, but within weeks OA changed course 

and told CREW, for the first time in this dispute, that it is not 

covered by FOIA because it provides administrative support 

and services directly to the President and the staff in the EOP, 

putting it outside FOIA’s definition of “agency.” Even so, OA 

produced some of the records, but only, in its own words, “as 

a matter of administrative discretion.” Letter from Carol 

Ehrlich, Freedom of Information Act Officer, Office of 

Admin., to Anne Weismann, CREW (June 21, 2007). OA 

refused to turn over the bulk of the potentially responsive 

records—more than 3000 pages. 

In August 2007, OA took its argument to the district 

court and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

CREW opposed the motion, asserting, among other things, 

that discovery was needed on the jurisdictional question 

whether OA is covered by FOIA. The district court denied 

OA’s motion without prejudice and allowed CREW to 

conduct limited jurisdictional discovery to explore “the 

authority delegated to [OA] in its charter documents and any 

functions that OA in fact carries out.” Citizens for 

Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Office of Admin., No. 07-

964, at 6 (D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2008) (order denying motion for 

judgment and directing discovery). The court ordered 

discovery on whether “OA acts with the type of substantial 

independent authority that has been found sufficient to make” 

other EOP units “subject to FOIA.” Id. at 5. OA produced 

more than 1300 pages of records about its responsibilities, 

provided a sworn declaration by its general counsel, and 

submitted its director to a deposition. 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 3 of 13
4 

Following discovery, the district court granted OA’s 

motion to dismiss CREW’s complaint for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction, see FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), concluding 

that OA is not an agency under FOIA because it “lacks the 

type of substantial independent authority” this court “has 

found indicative of agency status for other EOP components.” 

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Office of 

Admin., 559 F. Supp. 2d 9, 21 (D.D.C. 2008). For the same 

reason, the district court held in the alternative that CREW 

had failed to state a claim for relief, see FED. R. CIV. P. 

12(b)(6). On CREW’s motion for a stay pending appeal, the 

court ordered OA to preserve and keep in its control any 

records that might be responsive to CREW’s FOIA request. 

CREW appeals the district court’s dismissal of the 

complaint and the limits placed on the scope of jurisdictional 

discovery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2006). We review de novo the district court’s grant of OA’s 

motion to dismiss. See Nat’l Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. United 

States, 68 F.3d 1428, 1432 (D.C. Cir. 1995). We review the 

district court’s limits on discovery for abuse of discretion. See 

Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzalez, 477 F.3d 728, 737 

(D.C. Cir. 2007). 

II. 

Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act in 

1966 to provide public access to certain categories of 

government records. The Act strives “to pierce the veil of 

administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light 

of public scrutiny.” Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 

361 (1976). Described in its most general terms, FOIA 

requires covered federal entities to disclose information to the 

public upon reasonable request, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), unless 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 4 of 13
5 

the information falls within the statute’s exemptions, see id.

§ 552(b). 

By its terms, FOIA applies only to an “agency,” and the 

key inquiry of this appeal is whether the Office of 

Administration is an agency under the Act. In the original 

statute, “agency” was defined broadly as any “authority of the 

Government of the United States . . . .” Administrative 

Procedure Act, Pub. L. No. 89-554, § 551(1), 80 Stat. 378, 

381 (1966) (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)). In 

1974, Congress amended the definition of “agency” to 

include, more specifically, “any executive department, 

military department, Government corporation, Government 

controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive 

branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of 

the President), or any independent regulatory agency.” 5 

U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).1

 Although the 1974 amendments 

 

1

 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the EOP through the 

authority granted him by Congress. See Reorganization Act of 

1939, ch. 36, 53 Stat. 561 (1939). He submitted two reorganization 

plans to Congress that set forth the EOP’s structure. See

Reorganization Plan No. I of 1939, 4 Fed. Reg. 2727 (July 1, 1939), 

reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. at 527 (2006), and in 53 Stat. 1423 

(1939); Reorganization Plan No. II of 1939, 4 Fed. Reg. 2731 (July 

1, 1939), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. at 534 (2006), and in 53 Stat. 

1431 (1939). President Roosevelt intended that the EOP would 

“reduce the difficulties of the President in dealing with the 

multifarious agencies of the executive branch and assist him in 

distributing his responsibilities as the chief administrator of the 

Government by providing him with the necessary organization and 

machinery for better administrative management.” Reorganization 

Plan No. I of 1939, Message of the President, reprinted in 5 U.S.C. 

app. at 531 (2006). Today, the EOP is overseen by the President’s 

Chief of Staff and consists of temporary and permanent units that 

help the President develop and implement his policy agenda, 

manage the functioning of the executive branch, and communicate 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 5 of 13
6 

expressly include the EOP within the definition of “agency,” 

the Supreme Court relied upon their legislative history to hold 

that FOIA does not extend to “the President’s immediate 

personal staff or units in the Executive Office [of the 

President] whose sole function is to advise and assist the 

President,” Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the 

Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156 (1980) (quoting H.R. REP. NO. 93-

1380, at 15 (1974) (Conf. Rep.)). The Supreme Court’s use of 

FOIA’s legislative history as an interpretive tool has given 

rise to several tests for determining whether an EOP unit is 

subject to FOIA. These tests have asked, variously, “whether 

the entity exercises substantial independent authority,” 

Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 90 F.3d 553, 

558 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal quotation mark omitted), 

“whether . . . the entity’s sole function is to advise and assist 

the President,” id. (internal quotation mark omitted), and in an 

effort to harmonize these tests, “how close operationally the 

group is to the President,” “whether it has a self-contained 

structure,” and “the nature of its delegat[ed]” authority, Meyer 

v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1993). 

However the test has been stated, common to every case 

in which we have held that an EOP unit is subject to FOIA 

has been a finding that the entity in question “wielded 

substantial authority independently of the President.” 

Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F.3d 852, 854 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (per 

curiam). In Soucie v. David, we concluded that the Office of 

Science and Technology (OST) is an agency covered by 

FOIA because it has independent authority to evaluate federal 

scientific research programs, initiate and fund research 

projects, and award scholarships. 448 F.2d 1067, 1073–75 

 

with the public, Congress, and other groups. See Executive Office 

of the President, http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop 

(last visited May 1, 2009). 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 6 of 13
7 

(D.C. Cir. 1971). Similarly, we determined that the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) exercises substantial 

independent authority because it has a statutory duty to 

prepare the annual federal budget, which aids both Congress 

and the President. See Sierra Club v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 895, 

902 (D.C. Cir. 1978). We noted that “Congress signified the 

importance of OMB’s power and function, over and above its 

role as presidential advisor, when it provided . . . for Senate 

confirmation of the Director and Deputy Director of OMB.” 

Id. We also held that the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) comes within FOIA because it “coordinate[s] federal 

programs related to environmental quality[,] . . . issue[s] 

guidelines to federal agencies for the preparation of 

environmental impact statements,” and “issue[s] regulations 

to federal agencies for implementing all of the procedural 

provisions of [the National Environmental Policy Act].” 

Pac. Legal Found. v. Council on Envtl. Quality, 636 F.2d 

1259, 1262 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 

By the same token, we have consistently refused to 

extend FOIA to an EOP unit that lacks substantial 

independent authority. We held that the Council of Economic 

Advisors (CEA) was not covered by FOIA because it “has no 

independent authority such as that enjoyed either by CEQ or 

OST.” Rushforth v. Council of Econ. Advisors, 762 F.2d 

1038, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Specifically, we noted that CEA 

“has no regulatory power under [its] statute. It cannot fund 

projects based on [its] appraisal, as OST might, nor can it 

issue regulations for procedures based on the appraisals, as 

CEQ might.” Id. at 1043. And although President Ronald 

Reagan’s Task Force on Regulatory Relief comprised senior 

White House staffers and cabinet officers whose agencies fall 

under FOIA, we concluded that the Task Force was not a 

FOIA agency because it lacked substantial authority 

independent of the President “to direct executive branch 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 7 of 13
8 

officials.” Meyer, 981 F.2d at 1297. The Task Force reviewed 

agency rules and proposed regulatory revisions to the 

President, but it could not issue guidelines or other types of 

directives. See id. at 1289–90, 1294. Nor is the National 

Security Council (NSC) covered by FOIA because it plays no 

“substantive role apart from that of the President, as opposed 

to a coordinating role on behalf of the President.” Armstrong, 

90 F.3d at 565. 

And in Sweetland, we held that members of the 

Executive Residence staff do not exercise substantial 

authority independent of the President because they only 

“assist[] the President in maintaining his home and carrying 

out his various ceremonial duties.” 60 F.3d at 854. 

Specifically, they “provide[] for the operation of the 

[residence]” by preparing meals, greeting visitors, making 

repairs, improving the rooms’ mechanical systems, and 

providing needed services for official functions. Id. 

Sweetland’s analysis and disposition have special force in this 

matter because it involved an EOP unit that, like OA, 

provided to the President only operational and administrative 

support. Where that is the purpose and function of the unit, it 

lacks the substantial independent authority we have required 

to find an agency covered by FOIA. See id. (emphasizing that 

the “staff of the Executive Residence exercises none of the 

independent authority that we found to be critical in holding 

other entities that serve the President to be agencies subject to 

FOIA”). 

OA’s charter documents created an office within the EOP 

to perform tasks that are entirely operational and 

administrative in nature. President Jimmy Carter proposed 

OA as the “base for an effective EOP budget/planning system 

through which the President can manage an integrated EOP 

rather than a collection of disparate units.” Reorganization 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 8 of 13
9 

Plan No. 1 of 1977, Message of the President, H.R. DOC. NO. 

95-185 (July 15, 1977), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. at 661 

(2006). OA “shall provide components of the [EOP] with 

such administrative services as the President shall from time 

to time direct.” Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, § 2, 42 

Fed. Reg. 56,101, 56,101 (July 15, 1977), reprinted as 

amended in 5 U.S.C. app. at 658 (2006), and in 91 Stat. 1633, 

1633 (1977). President Carter ordered OA to “provide 

common administrative support and services to all units 

within [the EOP], except for such services provided [by the 

White House] primarily in direct support of the President.” 

Exec. Order No. 12,028, 42 Fed. Reg. 62,895, 62,895 (Dec. 

12, 1977). However, OA “shall, upon request, assist the White 

House Office in performing its role of providing those 

administrative services which are primarily in direct support 

of the President.” Id. OA continues to exercise these same 

functions and duties today. See Office of Administration, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oa (last visited 

May 1, 2009) (“The organization’s mission is to provide 

administrative services to all entities of the [EOP], including 

direct support services to the President of the United States.”). 

Significantly, OA’s director is “not accountable for the 

program and management responsibilities of units within the 

[EOP]”; instead, “the head of each unit . . . remain[s] 

responsible for those functions.” Exec. Order No. 12,122, 44 

Fed. Reg. 11,197, 11,197 (Feb. 26, 1979). 

As its name suggests, everything the Office of 

Administration does is directly related to the operational and 

administrative support of the work of the President and his 

EOP staff. OA’s services include personnel 

management; financial management; data processing; library, 

records, and information services; and “office services and 

operations, including: mail, messenger, printing and 

duplication, graphics, word processing, procurement, and 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 9 of 13
10 

supply services.” Exec. Order No. 12,028, 42 Fed. Reg. at 

62,895. CREW contends that OA’s support of non-EOP 

entities—including the Navy, the Secret Service, and the 

General Services Administration—undermines the 

government’s argument. But those units only receive OA 

support if they work at the White House complex in support 

of the President and his staff. Assisting these entities in these 

activities is consistent with OA’s mission. See Citizens for 

Responsibility & Ethics in Wash., 559 F. Supp. 2d at 16; see 

also Def.’s Mem. in Support of its Mot. To Dismiss for Lack 

of Subject Matter Jurisdiction at 19, Citizens for 

Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Office of Admin., No. 07-

964 (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2008) (“OA has interagency agreements 

for OA’s provision of voice systems operation and 

maintenance on the White House complex to several nonEOP entities . . . because of those entities’ presence there to 

support the EOP.”). Because nothing in the record indicates 

that OA performs or is authorized to perform tasks other than 

operational and administrative support for the President and 

his staff, we conclude that OA lacks substantial independent 

authority and is therefore not an agency under FOIA. 

CREW insists that OA is covered by FOIA because it 

thought itself so for nearly thirty years, complying with FOIA 

requests and even issuing regulations governing the process 

for producing records under the statute. In response, the 

government argues there has been on ongoing discussion in 

the Executive Branch questioning OA’s status under FOIA 

since at least 1995, when the district court in Armstrong v. 

Executive Office of the President, 877 F. Supp. 690 (D.D.C. 

1995), considered the application of FOIA to the NSC. The 

government also points to a brief it filed in the district court in 

2000 in a Privacy Act case, arguing that there was some doubt 

about whether OA was subject to FOIA because it lacked 

substantial independent authority. See Mem. in Support of 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 10 of 13
11 

Def.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 26 n.8, Barr v. Executive 

Office of the President, No. 99-1695 (D.D.C. Feb. 24, 2000). 

The history of OA’s positions on the matter is of no 

moment because we have been clear that past views have no 

bearing on the legal issue whether a unit is, in fact, an agency 

subject to FOIA. In Armstrong, we held that the NSC’s “prior 

references to itself as an agency are not probative on the 

question . . . whether [it] is indeed an agency within the 

meaning of the FOIA.” 90 F.3d at 566. Even though the NSC 

had taken the view on numerous occasions, including in 

litigation, that it was covered by FOIA, we concluded that 

NSC’s past position “should not be taken to establish as a 

matter of law[] that the NSC is subject to” FOIA, id. We 

conclude the same for OA. 

CREW raises two more arguments on appeal, neither of 

which warrants reversal. Although the district court dismissed 

the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), 

CREW argues the district court erred by also dismissing the 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(1). We agree. CREW’s claims were not “so 

insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of 

this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit” to 

warrant “[d]ismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” 

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 

(1998). But this error does not require reversal. We “may 

affirm on different grounds the judgment of a lower court if it 

is correct as a matter of law.” In re Marin, 956 F.2d 335, 339 

(D.C. Cir. 1992). Because we conclude that OA is not an 

agency covered by FOIA, we find sufficient grounds to affirm 

the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to 

state a claim. See Sweetland, 60 F.3d at 855 (affirming the 

district court’s decision that the complaint, which alleged 

FOIA violations by members of the Executive Residence, 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 11 of 13
12 

could be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), but refusing to 

uphold the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1)). 

Finally, CREW contends that the district court abused its 

discretion by limiting discovery to jurisdictional issues. We 

give the district court much room to shape discovery. See, 

e.g., Islamic Am. Relief Agency, 477 F.3d at 737 (explaining 

that the “district court has broad discretion in its handling of 

discovery”). CREW argues that the district court should have 

ordered OA to produce a variety of records, including 

documents disclosing OA’s organizational structure, OA staff 

manuals, all record disposition schedules OA submitted to the 

National Archives since 1977, any documents discussing 

OA’s retention of its records, all materials relating to OA’s 

implementation of FOIA, and the most recent information 

management plan. The record shows the district court allowed 

CREW to obtain more than 1300 pages of documents that 

shed light on OA’s authority and operations, an understanding 

of which is critical for determining whether OA is subject to 

FOIA. OA also submitted a declaration from its general 

counsel discussing the timeline of the government’s internal 

deliberations about its agency status, and it permitted OA’s 

director to be deposed and questioned by CREW attorneys 

about OA’s history of compliance with FOIA, its interactions 

with federal agencies, and the duties OA performs. The 

district court appropriately refused CREW’s discovery 

requests that did not speak to the question whether OA is an 

agency, that involved issues already addressed in the record, 

or that pertained to matters not in dispute. We conclude that 

the district court provided CREW ample opportunity to obtain 

materials exploring whether OA is an agency under FOIA. 

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 12 of 13
13 

III. 

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that OA need not 

comply with CREW’s requests because it is not an agency 

under FOIA. The judgment of the district court is 

Affirmed.

USCA Case #08-5188 Document #1181329 Filed: 05/19/2009 Page 13 of 13