Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-93-05411/USCOURTS-caDC-93-05411-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney R. Sweetland III
Appellant
Gary J. Walters
Appellee

Document Text:

<<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 10, 1995 Decided August 1, 1995

No. 93-5411

RODNEY R. SWEETLAND III,

APPELLANT

v.

GARY J. WALTERS, CHIEF USHER,

EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE, THE WHITE HOUSE,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(93cv01134)

Rodney R. Sweetland III argued the cause and filed the briefs pro se.

Matthew M. Collette, Attorney, United States Department ofJustice, with whom Frank W. Hunger,

Assistant Attorney General, Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, and Mark B. Stern,

Attorney, United States Department of Justice, were on the brief, argued the cause for appellee.

Elizabeth A. Pugh and Steve Frank, Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, entered

appearances for appellee.

Before BUCKLEY, RANDOLPH, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PERCURIAM: Rodney R. Sweetland III filed suit against Gary J. Walters, Chief Usher of the

Executive Residence of the President, under the Freedom of Information Act. The district court

dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as well as for failure to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted. Because we agree that Mr. Sweetland has failed to state a proper

claim, we affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Mr. Sweetland, an attorney, represented a former Assistant Chef in the Executive Residence

kitchen who filed an employment discrimination suit arising out of his service in that position. On

March 30, 1993, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1994), Mr.

USCA Case #93-5411 Document #139414 Filed: 08/01/1995 Page 1 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Sweetland asked the ExecutiveResidence for information concerning theResidence's kitchenstaffing

and budgets. Mr. Walters responded with a letter in which he supplied very general answers to some

of Mr. Sweetland's questions while asserting that the Executive Residence was not subject to FOIA.

Unsatisfied, Mr. Sweetland filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking

declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court held that the Executive Residence was not an

agency for the purposes of FOIA and, on that basis, granted Mr. Walters' motion to dismiss on the

groundsthat the court lacked jurisdiction and that Mr. Sweetland had failed to state a claimon which

relief could be granted. Mr. Sweetland appeals the dismissal of his complaint.

II. DISCUSSION

FOIA directs agencies, as defined therein, to make certain information available to the public.

5 U.S.C. § 552. Mr. Sweetland argues that the district court erred when it con-cluded that the

Executive Residence was not an "agency" for the purposes of FOIA. As amended in 1974, FOIA

provides:

For the purposes of this section, the term "agency" ... includes 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 other independent

regulatory agency.

5 U.S.C. § 552(f) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has held that

"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" are not included

within the term "agency" under the FOIA.

Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156 (1980) (quoting H.R.

Conf. Rep. No. 1380, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. 15 (1974)). Although the Executive Residence is not a unit

within the Executive Office of the President ("EOP"), see Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977,

reprinted in 3 U.S.C. Ch. 2 note at 431, 434 (1994) (Message of the President) (listing units within

the EOP), we believe it is analogous to an EOP unit for purposes of a FOIA analysis because the

Residence staff, like units within the EOP, is responsible directly to the President and assists him by

performing whatever duties he may prescribe. See 3 U.S.C. § 105(b)(1) (1994). Thus, we rely on

FOIA cases dealing with the responsibilities of EOP units in determining whether the Executive

USCA Case #93-5411 Document #139414 Filed: 08/01/1995 Page 2 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Residence is to be treated as an agency within the meaning of FOIA.

As we pointed out in Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993), every one of the EOP

units that we found to be subject to FOIA has wielded substantial authority independently of the

President. Id. at 1292 (discussing cases). For example, in Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067 (D.C. Cir.

1971), we held that the Office of Science and Technology was subject to FOIA because it had

independent authorityto evaluate federalscientific programs, initiate and supportresearch, and award

scholarships. See id. at 1075; Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisors, 762 F.2d 1038, 1041

(D.C. Cir. 1985). Similarly, in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Council on Environmental Quality, 636

F.2d 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1980), we held that the Council on EnvironmentalQualityan entitywithin the

EOP with power to coordinate federal environmental programs and issue guidelines and regulations

to federal agencieswas an agency for the purposes of FOIA. Id. at 1263.

By contrast, in cases involving units of the Executive Office that lacked substantial

independent authority, we have consistently rejected the claim that they were subject to FOIA. In

Rushforth, for example, we concluded that because the Council of Economic Advisors had no

regulatory power under itsimplementing statute or controlling executive orders, it was not an agency

under FOIA. Rushforth, 762 F.2d at 1043. More recently, we held that President Reagan's Task

Force on Regulatory Relief was exempt from FOIA because it lacked "substantial independent

authority to direct executive branch officials." Meyer, 981 F.2d at 1297 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

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.

Thisisself-evident from a description of the staff and its dutiesto which the parties have referred us:

The Executive Residence staff provides for the operation of the Executive

Residence. A staff of 36 domestic employees accomplish general housekeeping,

prepare and serve meals, greet visitors, and provide services asrequired in support of

official and ceremonial functions. A staff of 33 tradespersons, including plumbers,

carpenters, painters, ... electricians... and operating engineers... maintains and makes

repairs, minor modifications, and improvementsto the 132 rooms and the mechanical

systems, and provides support for official and ceremonial functions. This staff

includes four florists, four curators, and four calligraphers.

Report of Senate Appropriations Committee, S. Rep. No. 286, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 51 (1994). This

USCA Case #93-5411 Document #139414 Filed: 08/01/1995 Page 3 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

catalogue of the Residence staff's functions demonstrates that it is exclusively dedicated to assisting

the President in maintaining his home and carrying out his various ceremonial duties. The staff does

not oversee and coordinate federal programs, as does the Office of Science and Technology, or

promulgate binding regulations, as does the Council on Environmental Quality. In short, neither

Congress nor the President has delegated independent authority to these employees.

Mr. Sweetland insists, however, that Congress has imposed on certain employees of the

Executive Residence duties that "are not mutable at the whim of the President." Reply Brief at 12

(citing 3 U.S.C. §§ 109 & 110 (1994)). We disagree. Even though the cited sections of the U.S.

Code impose relatively specific obligations on the Residence staff with respect to the public property

and furniture in the White House, they also indicate that these duties must be carried out "under the

direction of the President," 3 U.S.C. § 109, or "with the approval of the President." 3 U.S.C. § 110.

Contrary to Mr. Sweetland's assertions, these provisions do not empower the Executive Residence

staff to manage the President's home without regard to the President's wishes. Nor are they

inconsistent with section 105(b)(1)'s general command that such employees "shall perform such

official duties as the President may prescribe." 3 U.S.C. § 105(b)(1).

Mr. Sweetland argues, nevertheless, that exempting the Executive Residence would frustrate

the public policy objectives of FOIA without providing any offsetting benefits. Again, we disagree.

FOIA was intended to enlighten citizens as to how they are governed. Department of Justice v.

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 775 (1989) (noting that "core purpose"

of FOIA wasto contribute "significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the

government ") (emphasis in original). Absent explicit instructions to the contrary, we will not

presume that Congress intended to impose on members of the President's personalstaffso unseemly

a duty asrevealing the intimate details ofthe management of his home, particularlywhen those details

will often be closely connected to his duties as head of State as well as head of Government.

Accordingly, we hold that the staff of the Executive Residence is not an agency as defined in

FOIA; and because it is not subject to FOIA's reporting requirements, Mr. Sweetland's complaint has

failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Cf. Haddon v. Walters, 43 F.3d 1488,

USCA Case #93-5411 Document #139414 Filed: 08/01/1995 Page 4 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1490 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (plaintiff failed to state claim upon which relief could be granted because

statute on which he relied did not apply to defendant). While we cannot agree that the district court

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, id. (district court has jurisdiction over substantive claims arising

under laws of United States); see also Kleiman v. Dep't of Energy, 956 F.2d 335, 339 (D.C. Cir.

1992) (same), we nonetheless affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing Mr. Sweetland's

complaint for failure to state a legally cognizable claim.

III. CONCLUSION

Because the Executive Residence is not an "agency" for the purposes of FOIA, it is not

obliged to provide the information sought by Mr. Sweetland. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court's judgment dismissing the complaint.

So ordered.

USCA Case #93-5411 Document #139414 Filed: 08/01/1995 Page 5 of 5