Document: 542 U.S. 367 CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.v.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR COLUMBIA AL. No. 03-475. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 27, 2004. Decided June 24, The President established the National Energy Policy Development Group (Group) to give him advice and make recommendations on energy policy, assigning a number federal agency heads assistants serve as members authorizing Vice President, chairman, include other officers appropriate. After issued final report and, according Government, terminated all operations, respondents filed these separate actions, later consolidated in District Court, alleging that had not complied with Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which, inter alia, imposes variety open-meeting disclosure requirements entities meeting definition "advisory committee." As relevant here, such committee is an entity or "subgroup . ., which utilized by exclud[ing] any composed wholly full-time, permanent part-time, [federal] employees." 5 U. S. C. App. §2(B)(i). complaint alleged that, because nonfederal employees private lobbyists regularly attended fully participated Group's nonpublic meetings de facto members, could benefit from § 2(B) exemption was therefore subject FACA's requirements. suit sought declaratory relief injunction requiring defendants—including Government officials serving Group—to produce materials allegedly Among its rulings, granted defendants' motion dismiss some them, but denied it others. held substantive be enforced against participants under Mandamus Act, 28 1361, defendants Administrative Procedure 706. It deferred ruling whether FACA duty sufficiently clear nondiscretionary for mandamus issue. also Government's contention disregard §2(B) apply would violate separation-of-powers principles interfere President's constitutional prerogatives. Instead, court allowed conduct "tightly-reined" discovery ascertain structure membership, thus determine membership doctrine applied. While acknowledging itself might raise serious questions, explained assert executive privilege protect sensitive disclosure. noted if, after discovery, no evidentiary support their allegations about Group, prevail statutory grounds. Even were appropriate address issues, explained, orders provide factual development necessary extent intrusion into Executive's authority. then ordered submit plan, approved plan due course, entered allowing proceed, certification 1292(b) respect orders. Petitioners writ Appeals vacate relief, dismissed petition ground alternative avenues remained available. Citing States v. Nixon, 418 683, petitioners, order guard prerogatives, must first particularity Court. If lower sustained privilege, appeals observed, petitioners able obtain they sought; if rejected claim, well So long conflict hypothetical, held, authority exercise extraordinary remedy mandamus. Although scope respondents' requests overly broad, nonetheless agreed should bear burden invoking objecting detailed precision. Held: 1. Respondents' preliminary argument jurisdictionally out time rejected. Respondents basic one immunity—i.e., need invoke particular objections requests—the have been within 60 days Rule Appellate 4(a)(1)(B). On this theory, last day filing September 9, 2002, whereas notice appeal until November 7. However, 4(a), plain terms, applies only appeal. inapplicable All Writs §1651. barred equitable laches fails. Laches bar where petitioner slept his rights especially delay prejudicial. Chapman County Douglas, 107 348, 355. Here, however, flurry motions dismissal overcomes argument. Nor does accept those amounted little more than dilatory tactics. Given drastic nature Court's holdings may issue while remain available, cannot faulted attempting resolve dispute through less means. Pp. 378-380. 2. erred concluding lacked asserting 380-392. (a) "drastic extraordinary" "reserved really causes." Ex parte Fahey, 332 258, 259-260. conditions obtaining demanding, are insuperable. This has to, restrain whose actions threaten separation powers embarrassing Executive Branch. Peru, 318 578, 588. Were party, entertained action present different considerations. comembers subjects alleges substantial intrusions process closest advise him. These facts remove case category ordinary interlocutory appellate review unavailable, otherwise. A communications activities encompass vastly wider range material true individual. S., at 715. above law, Judiciary afford Presidential confidentiality greatest possible protection, ibid., recognizing paramount necessity protecting Branch vexatious litigation distract energetic performance duties. considerations inform appeals' evaluation involving President. Accepted standards broad enough allow prevent interfering coequal branch's ability discharge responsibilities. See supra, 587. 380-382. (b) labored mistaken assumption assertion precondition objections. In view, requirement colleagues narrow specificity precision mandated Nixon's rejection "absolute, unqualified immunity judicial circumstances," court's analysis overlooks fundamental differences between weight put it. Unlike case, concerns information use civil suit, Nixon involved proper balance interest "constitutional production evidence criminal proceeding." Id., 713. distinction proceedings just matter formalism context. right same dimensions" 711. Withholding ongoing constitutes impermissible impairment another "essential functions." Ibid. hamper functions" quite way. known violations, all. situation cannot, fairness, compared fulfill responsibility cases controversies jurisdiction hinged availability certain indispensable information. Another important factor here imposed routine dispute. directed senior who served Special control when interests maintaining autonomy safeguarding communications' implicated. See, e. g., Clinton Jones, 520 681, 707. subpoenas militates position. There checks analogous constraints justice system filter insubstantial legal claims. Civil 11 sanctions attorneys' obligation candor tribunal proved insufficient discourage meritless claims Finally, narrowly tailored subpoena "precisely identified" "specific[ally] ... enumerated" materials, U.S., 688, n. 5, stand marked contrast disparity, precedents sufficient making particularized Indeed, suggest opposite. e.g., Clinton, 705. Contrary conclusions, did leave courts sole option inviting privilege. Rather, narrowed own. deciding mandamus, there exceptional circumstances amounting usurpation power, Will States, 389 90, 95, "clear abuse discretion," Bankers Life & Casualty Co. Holland, 346 379, 383, ask constituted unwarranted branch 383-391. (c) Absent overriding avoid piecemeal litigation, see Schlagenhauf Holder, 379 104, 111, declines direct where, having considered abused discretion failing writ. relied reading prematurely inquiry without even reaching weighty raised exercising circumstances. Because issuance vested made, leaves parties' arguments matters bearing issue, mind burdens future proceedings. applicable reexamine, statute embodies doctrine. 391-392. 334 F. 3d 1096, vacated remanded. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, BREYER, JJ., joined, SCALIA THOMAS, joined Parts I, II, III, IV. concurring opinion, post, p. 392. part dissenting part, SCALIA, 393. GINSBURG, SOUTER, 396. CERTIORARI TO APPEALS CIRCUIT. Solicitor General Olson argued cause petitioners. With briefs Assistant Attorney Keisler, Deputy Clement, Attorneys Katsas Coffin, Mark B. Stern, Michael Raab, Douglas Hallward-Driemeier. Alan Morrison respondent Sierra Club. brief Scott Nelson, David Bookbinder, Patrick Gallagher, Alex Levinson, Sanjay Narayan. Paul J. Orfanedes Judicial Watch, Inc. James Peterson.* JUSTICE KENNEDY 1 Columbia directing task force policy requires us consider power modify dissolve when, virtue overbreadth, enforcement duties impinge upon 2 * few assuming office, George W. Bush memorandum establishing (NEPDG Group). "develo[p] national designed help sector, government levels, promote dependable, affordable, environmentally sound distribution future." 156-157. assigned assistants—all Government—to committee. He authorized chairman invite "other Government" participate "as appropriate." 157. Five months later, NEPDG operations. 3 Following publication report, Inc., Club failed comply procedural (FACA Act), 2, 4 enacted monitor "numerous committees, boards, commissions, councils, similar groups [that] agencies Government," 2(a), "wasteful expenditure public funds" result proliferation, Public Citizen Department Justice, 491 440, 453 (1989). Subject specific exemptions, meet committee" means "any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, force, group, subcommittee subgroup thereof , is— 6 "(B) except [the definition] excludes (i) Government...." 3(2), 7 do appointed NEPDG. They agree NEPDG, memorandum, "composed Government." alleges, "non-federal employees," including "private lobbyists," "regularly non-public meetings." 21 (Judicial Watch Complaint ¶ 25). Relying Association American Physicians Surgeons, 997 2d 898 (CADC 1993) (AAPS), contend regular participation non-Government individuals made them According complaint, "involvement role functionally indistinguishable [formal] members." 915. result, argue, Act's subsection B 8 Cheney, named defendants. seeks 9 moved dismiss. part. acknowledged create action. basis, dissolved, sued defendant; well. (APA), recognized be, among things, "final actions" APA apply. premature decide questions. keep case. 10 prerogatives NEPDG's applies. Dev. 219 Supp. 20, 54 (DC 2002). "issues will much limited challenge government." 55. adopted approach attempt noting industry executives can Furthermore, plan. course series CADC 238, 263, 364 (reproducing Sept. Oct. 17, Nov. 1, 2002), orders, rule basis administrative record, suit. Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541 (1949); 683 (1974). 12 divided panel attempted re 1096 2003). majority declined Under moreover, "`with particularity.'" 3d, 1104. majority's sustains seek. rejects claim creates "an imminent risk protected presidential communications," "mandamus letting `the cat bag.'" 1104-1105. "But so anticipate remains hypothetical," "we mandamus." 1105. far "limited items" entitled "the district ultimately determines FACA." 1105-1106; id., 1106 ("The go beyond requirements"); ibid. ("[Respondents'] goes what prove"). "`shall burden'" "`detailed precision.'" 1105 (quoting Aug. Order). 13 For reasons, "to place himself posture disobeying merely trigger mechanism review." 691. majority, found unlike then-President yet asserted forced choose suffering contempt failure obey order. require unnecessary confrontation two branches described Nixon. 14 Judge Randolph opinion. view AAPS' mistaken, Constitution bars application Allowing applicability doctrine, he concluded, inappropriate. complaints. 1119. 15 We certiorari. 540 1088 (2003). now judgment remand further reconsider petition. II 16 matter, we or, alternatively, laches. respondents, immunity—that is, Fed. Proc. 4(a)(1)(B) ("When officer party appealed entered"). 2002. file 7, four commenced 17 acknowledge, Brief Respondent 23. 4(a) 1651. Appeals' issued, collateral express timely filed. 18 withstand scrutiny. "slept ..., prejudicial [other party], persons." 355 (1883). activity following denial neglected rights. filed, papers, protective 3; stay pending October 21; pursuant baseline measuring timeliness denying dismiss, active neglect 19 accept, furthermore, tactics "delay obstruct proceedings." light our holding law litigants impossible position exhaust remedies before petitioning hand, earliest moment laches, other. properly consideration. III 20 come central case—whether correct conclude "ha[d] mandamus," 1105, common-law codified 1651(a): "The Congress writs aid respective jurisdictions agreeable usages law." 259-260 (1947). traditional both common confine sought] lawful prescribed jurisdiction." Roche Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 21, 26 (1943). "confined themselves arbitrary technical `jurisdiction,'" 95 (1967), "only `usurpation power,'" 383 (1953), "will justify invocation remedy," Will, 95. 22 most potent weapons arsenal," 107, three satisfied Kerr Dist. Northern Cal., 426 394, 403 (1976). First, seeking [must] adequate attain desires," ibid.—a condition ensure used substitute process, 260. Second, satisfy "`the showing [his] indisputable."'" Kerr, Co., 384). Third, prerequisites met, issuing court, discretion, (citing 112, (1964)). hurdles, however "embarrass[ing] arm 588 (1943), "intrusion judiciary delicate area federal-state relations," Maryland Soper (No. 1), 270 (1926)). 23 notwithstanding certification, "substantial operational proximity President." 343. "a `ordinary individual.'" Chief Justice Marshall, sitting trial judge, unique stated "[i]n required proceed president individual." Burr, 25 Cas. 187, 192 14,694) (CC Va. 1807). 698-699 (1997) ("We have, short, `unique scheme' Office President] occupies" Fitzgerald, 457 731, 749 (1982))); 710-724 (BREYER, judgment). mean "President simply acknowledge "afford protection consistent fair administration justice," recognition 24 587 (recognizing political taken sphere promptly recognized, inconvenience prolonged avoided prompt termination court"); 701 `[e]ven arrogate impair duties'" Loving 517 748, 757 (1996))). IV concerns. though overbroad "go requirements," former 1105-1106. circumstances." refused recognize reasoned, rejected, fortiori, petitioners' invoked. maintain powers, premature. analysis, cases. puts involves decision explicit "not concerned generalized litigation.... trials." 712, 19. 27 drew formalism. context weightier "our historic[al] commitment nowhere profoundly manifest twofold aim [of justice] guilt shall escape innocence suffer.'" 708-709 Berger 295 78, 88 (1935)). "fundamental" "comprehensive" "every man's evidence" system, 709, 710, resist disclosure, shield grand jury proceeding "expansively construed, derogation search truth," 710. cases, negligible, share urgency significance dimensions." observed "primary [is] prosecutions." carrying tasks "conflict[s] function Art. III." Such functions [another] branch," impermissible. perform place. congressional objectives, consequence inability seek difficult complainants vindicate Congress' objectives FACA. And argument's sake, reasoning Randolph's end frustrated, follow Article I impaired. hinges 29 party's facet problem. An weighing opposite direction Branch, highest level, already noted, special Branch's office occasion, "[t]he high owed entire proceeding, timing discovery," 707, responsibilities status [are] factors counseling deference restraint" it, 753. reliance involve see, 394 (1976), altogether misplaced. 30 subpoenas, observation confidential disrupt functioning applied mechanistic fashion litigation. various constraints, albeit imperfect, prosecute example, publicly accountable prosecutor budgetary ethical obligation, win zealously advocate client justice. rigors penal mitigated responsible prosecutorial discretion. contrast, here. 11, attorneys owe tribunal, safeguards "In visibility of" Offices effect [their] countless people," "easily identifiable target[s] suits damages." 31 footing exacting "(1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity." 700 (interpreting Crim. 17(c)). intended discovery." 698. fell requesting 699 ("[I]n prior trial, moving show [that met]"). addressed surmounted demanding 698 ("If [Rule 17(c)] challenge, occasion reach subpoenaed material"). very serves safeguard operation 32 acknowledged, everything sky: 33 "1. documents identifying referring staff, personnel, contractors, consultants Task Force. 34 "2. Sub-Group. 35 "3. 36 "4. persons participating preparation Report Force 37 "5. concerning communication relating Force, Sub-Groups, Report.... 38 "6. person [a list agencies]." 220-221. 39 preceding excerpt "First Request Production Documents," 215 (emphasis added), beginning. Set Interrogatories" similarly unbounded scope. 224. breadth precedent provides proposition "shall burden" To sure, "broad [and] undifferentiated" unqualified" withhold face 706, so, information—the prosecutor—had propriety requests. anything event merits, besides. circumstances, onus critiquing unacceptable line line. Our 681 (1997); 705 (holding "appropriate process" Executive); 40 fact object asked Its ignored. 167, 181-183 (arguing "this resolved short wide-ranging inquiries plaintiffs proposed" suggesting alternatives "limi[t]" discovery); 232 ("Defendants plaintiffs' undue them. broader reasonably calculated lead admissible evidence"); 232, state general purposes clarity record preclude waived"). addition, objected arise insistence winnow 201 (Tr. Status Hearing (Aug. 2002)) (noting "concerns disrupting effective presidency vice-presidency"); 274 ("[C]ompliance That real burden. completed done Your Honor today gone, realized"). arguments, too, 327, 329 (Nov. Order) had, "on numerous occasions," "that [it] respond [the] `unconstitutional burden' Branch"). 41 remaining otherwise powerless lightly invoked." Reynolds, 345 (1953). Once asserted, set collision course. balancing places awkward evaluating autonomy, pushes fore questions balances. "occasion[s] branches" whenever possible. 692. 42 concerns, explore avenues, forcing enforce unnecessarily subpoenas. Poindexter, 727 1501 (1989), defendant charges, Reagan exculpatory materials. "unreasonable oppressive." 1503. Rejecting defendant's "it undesirable compel large array documents." decided narrow, own, possibly smaller narrowing subpoenas." 1504. example choices available 43 discussed outset, jurisdiction, finding "exceptional Life, 383. implicates ask, inquiry, constrained outlined, 380-382, limit remedy. question. V 44 absence sort Schlagenhauf, 111 (discussing, "piecemeal litigation" settle issues impression areas bears responsibility), decline invitation Moreover, Appeals, relying exercised Supra, 381. presented original 586, AAPS Other addressed, instance, considering additional deems note mindful 45 vacated, remanded 46 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging affirmance Law Libraries et al. Overlock Stewart, Thomas M. Susman, Miriam Nisbet, Agrast, Meredith Fuchs, Elliot Mincberg; Natural Resources Defense Council Eric R. Glitzenstein, Howard Crystal, Sharon Buccino; Reporters Freedom Press Lucy A. Dalglish, Richard Schmidt, Jr., Bruce Sanford. 47 concurring. 48 Broad encouraged salutary purpose facilitating resolution concrete disputes. normal entirely responding assume heavy persuasion allowed. Two interrelated taking case: requested enforce. 49 Club, 1361. remedy, plaintiff owes duty." Heckler Ringer, 466 602, 616 (1984). Thus, persuade establish seq., "records related advisory committee's work public"—the still enforceable concedes, (NEPDG) longer exists. novel member ante, 374, records lawsuit. words, obtain, entitlement 50 granting effectively prejudged merits relief— outcome inconsistent instead requests, demonstrate tend theory case.* think nevertheless join because, architect forum 51 whom joins, 52 one, invoked situations." 402 framing judgment, recognizes hurdle, observing indisputable.'" Ante, 381 (internal quotation marks omitted)). But disposition, barely mentions precisely question indisputable "`vacat[ing] direct[ing] supplemental affidavits require, defendant.'" 1101 2003) Emergency Pet. Writ 02-5354 (CADC)). faced necessarily account proceeded (FACA) indisputable, clear. 53 One look unclear hence unavailable. applying advisors `present[s] formidable difficulties.'" 2002) (1989)). Putting aside matter. 2d, 54-55 possibility summary grounds). 898, 915 1993), undertake exception, 3(2)(C)(i), But, authorize inner workings potential offend Constitution's actual itself. 1114-1115 (Randolph, dissenting). existence prove relief—much relief—mandamus unwarranted, 55 constitutional, mere favor Otherwise, turn freestanding virtually statute, 56 clearly exceeded reverse instruction writ.* interrogatories depositions determined, voted drafted portions report. my arguably warrant classifying employee ade member. SOUTER dissenting. Columbia, urged discovery. 183-184, 339; 45; Reply 18. vacating remands consideration overbreadth 372-373, 387-390. appeared "never original). based exorbitance least "premature," affirm writ,1 pursue expressed intention "tightly [to] rei[n] [in] request. gain operations energy-policy (NEPDG), 1; officials. 16-40, 139-154; 373-374. extensive included far-ranging sweeping documents, Cert. 51a; 215-230. order, "produce non-privileged log." 47a. drawn indeed "unbounded scope." 388; accord 1106. Initial approval given stunning Cf. 387-391. itself, invited "detailed precise object[ions]" instructed "identify explain invocations particularity." 51a. duplication, provided identify "documents [responsive requests] ha[d] released [Judicial Club] fora." Ibid.2 Anticipating suggested "submit [any privileged documents] seal consideration," [could] appoint equivalent Master, maybe retired judge," documents. 247. objections; nor supply particulars assertions ("the governmen[t] appropriate"); 205 (same); ("As tell, never [respondents] allegation NEPDG." original)). flow record" sans 192. Without up suggestion readiness rein 54, behalf moved, unsuccessfully, 1292(b). 1100; 47a (District order); 233 certification).3 At hearing appeal, injury submitting compelling [respondents]." 316; 230 stay). Despite "flurry activity," contesting terms proposing scaled-down 1106, states "did way," 388. statement, points proposed response unduly burdensome. 388-389; 166-184, 201, 231-234, 274. True, disputed term "meeting" interrogatories, stated, passing, "discovery [both] written interrogatories" membership." 179, 181, 233.4 mentioned "excessive discovery" plea shielded doing document unconstitutional burden," 274, anchored. underlying "position [was] it's going anything," 249.5 bottom firmly consistently "review, frame case." 181; 233. "consist Memorandum Watch's request permission attend meetings"; 183. strategy opposition whole lieu focused (Government stated: "We offer plan]...."). Further sounding leitmotif, "didn't objections" "because [in view] 192; (same). endeavoring misunderstanding underscored resistance 192-194; (asserting supplement record]"). declared Support Defendants' Motion Protective Order Reconsideration, Nos. 01-1530 (EGS), 02-631 (D. D. C., 3, ("[Petitioners] respectfully enter relieving [respondents'] [requests]." added)); (same).6 "ignored" pleas "narrow" 388-390. did, voice concern heed instructions: "I told government, you objections, let me know [discovery] appropriate, said, well, unconstitutional, elaborating. You Plaintiffs' Defendants request.... My was, are, chose so." 205. Denied Appeals. 339-365. petition, "vacate defendant." 364-365. again adjudicated discovery: comity demonstration countervailing interest." 360. "goes need." "remain[ed] hypothetical." Far ordering immediate "disclosure being formulated President," initially "non-privileged 1104 (citation internal omitted); 47a.7 stressed accommodate Principally, narrowed, move, "whether non-federal NEPDG], extent." produced avoiding reproduction. 1105; 397. If, narrowing, impels privilege," "entertain [those] claims" "review camera." 1107. Mindful judiciary's police executive," confidence "respond "This repeatedly reserved Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. Mayacamas 485 271, 289 (1988) (1976)); 380-381 reiterates, desires." (1943)); 380-381. Throughout move reduction 398-402. "explore particular, "narrow, [discovery]." 390. Nothing suggests either refuse 397, 398, 401-402, page. When parties avail opportunities relief—i. e., reined-in discovery—is surely doubtful proposition. err own initiative. cites 1989), "sound precedent" district-court 390, target Reagan, affirmatively Supp., criticism awaits tightening discovery; certainly, makes indisputable" error adhering principle initiation, omitted).8 Review stage comprehensible test ("[P]etitioners' discovery."). remanding discovery-tailoring measures, apparently no-discovery sense. intimates refusal reduce "effectively prejudg[ing] claim," 393 (STEVENS, concurring). (respondents "need involvement officials"). 393, concurring) ("A determined report"). am "confident [were so] [would] legitimate limits." 1107.9 correctly over 1109; cfante, 378-379 (leaving appellate-jurisdiction undecided). addressing inappropriate whether" obtained Immediate ruling, rare collateral-order "inherently tentative" word subject." 277 omitted). Information Section Title allows appeals, "in entertain "[w]hen judge controlling difference materially advance ultimate litigation." limiting indicated agreement. ("[Respondents] names [NEPDG]'s activities, description each person's [NEPDG]. discover participated, marks, ellipsis, brackets omitted)) "24 boxes potentially responsive requests.... identified likely contained approximately twelve boxes." 282-283. Each box "requires attorney prepare rough log. review, logs finalized. Further, once emails identified, printed, numbered, [petitioners] expect logging [will] equally, more, time-consuming, expected quantity individual emails."Id., 284. responses gave rote hardly illuminating refusing deliberative privileges" forthcoming. See,e. Defendant Energy's Response First Interrogatories, (EGS) 2002); Management Budget's "labored objections."Ante, 391. "hypothetical," measures take "carefully focu[s]" plaintiff." Seeante, 390-391; 41-44. Chandler Tenth Circuit, 398 74, 87-89, (1970) 1651, improper, expressing 1361). 1361 concluded "would issue." 44. contested passing 1651 relief. 363-364 petition: circumvent limits provision directly providing action."). qualifies grounds THOMAS urges "wide-ranging [is needed] relief." 395 (opinion part) 402-403; infra, 405, contain "wideranging." applicant (1984) added). No grants officer, rather imposing precluded developed command dishonored. "mak[e] convenient aggrieved Stafford Briggs, 444 527, 535 (1980), instance defendant, unequivocally concedes measure obligation. become juncture seeante, 391, lies 1292(b); 3.

Category: 4