Opinion ID: 454728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Judicial Review of Agency Compliance with the Sunshine Act.

Text: 15 Judicial review of agency compliance with the Sunshine Act is provided for in two sections of the Act: subsections (g) and (h). Section 552b(g) specifies that [s]ubject to any limitations of time provided by law, any person may bring a proceeding in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to set aside agency regulations issued pursuant to this subsection that are not in accord with the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of this section and to require the promulgation of regulations that are in accord with such subsections. Id. Subsection (g) is applicable to challenges to an agency rule on its face and not a dispute arising out of its application to a particular meeting. R. Berg & S. Klitzman, An Interpretative Guide to the Government in the Sunshine Act, 82 (1978) (hereinafter Interpetative Guide). 2 See, e.g., Pacific Legal Foundation v. Counsel on Environ. Quality, 36 F.2d 1259 (D.C.Cir.1980) (The Court held that the implementing regulations of the Counsel on Environmental Quality which exempted from the open meeting requirement meetings involving advice to the President [or] actions taken by the Chairman acting as Director of the Office of Environmental Quality under the Environmental Quality Improvement Act violated the Sunshine Act. 636 F.2d at 1265-66); see also S.Rep. No. 354, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 33 (1975) (S.Rep.) reprinted in Senate and House Committee on Government Operations, Government in the Sunshine Act--S.5 (Public Law 94-409) Source Book: Legislative History, Text, and other Documents, 228 (Source Book) ([A] person may invoke this provision, for example, to challenge the applicability of (d)(4) to a particular agency.) 3 16 Subsection (g) provides that direct challenges to the implementing regulations must be brought [s]ubject to any limitations of time provided by law. The legislative history reveals that [t]his limitation of time for a direct challenge to the regulations is of course not intended to limit the right of a litigant to question their validity when they are applied to him at some later date. H.Rep. No. 880, 94th Cong.2d Sess. 16 (1976) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, pp. 2183, 2198 (H.Rep.); Source Book at 527. The Act does not require litigants to demonstrate that they are adversely affected or aggrieved by the challenged regulation to have standing. S.Rep. at 33; Source Book at 228. 17 Any person has standing to bring an action since the bill is designed to protect the right of the general public to attend agency meetings. Thus, standing to bring action under this section cannot be limited to only those persons who may be directly affected by particular agency action taken at the meeting. Any person with sufficient interest in the matter to want to bring suit under this section will be able to do so. 18 Id. 19 Section 552b(h)(1), the second avenue of judicial review, 4 grants the district courts jurisdiction to enforce the requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of this section by declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other relief as may be appropriate. 20 Subsection (h) provides for judicial enforcement of the provisions of section 552b where agency actions, including failures to act, relating to a meeting are asserted to be in violation of the provisions of this section. Subsection (h) is not available for pre-enforcement review of an agency's Sunshine regulation; such an action must be brought under subsection (g). However, if a dispute over a particular act of alleged noncompliance, such as the use of an improper procedure in closing the meeting, involves the validity of the agency regulation, this issue may be resolved in an action brought under subsection (h). 21 Interpretative Guide at 85-6. See, e.g., Federal Communications Commission v. ITT World Communications, Inc., 466 U.S. 463, 104 S.Ct. 1936, 80 L.Ed.2d 480 (1984) (whether a meeting between the FCC's telecommunications committee and representatives of European nations was a meeting for purposes of the Act). Under subsection (h)(1), the district court may grant appropriate equitable relief including, ordering an agency to open a meeting it had planned to close, ordering the release of a record of an improperly closed meeting, or issuing a declaratory judgment. S.Rep. at 33; Source Book at 228. According to the legislative history, [a]s in the case of subsection (g) [providing for judicial review of implementing regulations], any member of the public has standing to bring suit under this subsection. S.Rep. at 34; Source Book at 229. 22