491 U.S. 440 (1989), 88-429, Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice

Docket NºNo. 88-429
Citation491 U.S. 440, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 105 L.Ed.2d 377, 57 U.S.L.W. 4793
Party NamePublic Citizen v. United States Department of Justice
Case DateJune 21, 1989
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 440

491 U.S. 440 (1989)

109 S.Ct. 2558, 105 L.Ed.2d 377, 57 U.S.L.W. 4793

Public Citizen

v.

United States Department of Justice

No. 88-429

United States Supreme Court

June 21, 1989

Argued April 17, 1989

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Syllabus

To aid the President in fulfilling his constitutional duty to appoint federal judges, the Department of Justice regularly seeks advice from the Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association (ABA) regarding potential nominees for judgeships. The ABA Committee's investigations, reports, and votes on potential nominees are kept confidential, although its rating of a particular candidate is made public if he or she is in fact nominated. Appellant Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) filed suit against the Justice Department after the ABA Committee refused WLF's request for the names of potential nominees it was considering and for its reports and minutes of its meetings. The action was brought under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which, among other things, defines an "advisory committee" as any group "established or utilized" by the President or an agency to give advice on public questions, and requires a covered group to file a charter, afford notice of its meetings, open those meetings to the public, and make its minutes, records, and reports available to the public. Joined by appellant Public Citizen, WLF asked the District Court to declare the Committee an "advisory group" subject to FACA's requirements and to enjoin the Department from utilizing the ABA Committee until it complied with those requirements. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the Department's use of the ABA Committee is subject to FACA's strictures, but ruling that applying FACA to the ABA Committee would unconstitutionally infringe on the President's Article II power to nominate federal judges and violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

Held:

1. Appellants have standing to bring this suit. The refusal to permit them to scrutinize the ABA Committee's activities [109 S.Ct. 2560] to the extent FACA allows constitutes a sufficiently distinct injury to provide standing, and the fact that other groups or citizens might make the same complaint as appellants does not lessen that injury. Moreover, although the statute's

Page 441

disclosure exemptions might bar public access to many of the meetings appellants seek to attend and many of the documents they wish to view, the exemptions probably would not deny access to all meetings and documents, particularly discussions and documents regarding the ABA Committee's overall functioning, and would not excuse the ABA Committee's noncompliance with FACA's other provisions, such as those requiring a covered organization to file a charter and give notice of its meetings. Thus, appellants may gain significant and genuine relief if they prevail in their suit, and such potential gains are sufficient to give them standing. Pp. 448-451.

2. FACA does not apply to the Justice Department's solicitation of the ABA Committee's views on prospective judicial nominees. Pp. 451-467.

(a) Whether the ABA Committee is an "advisory committee" under FACA depends upon whether it is "utilized" by the President or the Department within the statute's meaning. Read unqualifiedly, that verb would extend FACA's coverage to the ABA Committee. However, since FACA was enacted to cure specific ills -- particularly the wasteful expenditure of public funds for worthless committee meetings and biased proposals by special interest groups -- it is unlikely that Congress intended the statute to cover every formal and informal consultation between the President or an Executive agency and a group rendering advice. When the literal reading of a statutory term compels an odd result, this Court searches beyond the bare text for other evidence of congressional intent. Pp. 451-455.

(b) Although the question is a close one, a careful review of the regulatory scheme prior to FACA's enactment and that statute's legislative history strongly suggests that Congress did not intend that the term "utilized" apply to the Justice Department's use of the ABA Committee. FACA's regulatory predecessor, Executive Order No. 11007, applied to advisory committees formed by a governmental unit, and to those not so formed when "being utilized by [the Government] in the same manner as a Government-formed . . . committee." That the ABA Committee was never deemed to be "utilized" in the relevant sense is evidenced by the fact that no President operating under the Order or any Justice Department official ever applied the Order to the ABA Committee, despite its highly visible role in advising the Department as to potential nominees. That is not surprising, since the ABA Committee -- which was formed privately, rather than at the Government's prompting, to assist the President in performing a constitutionally specified function, and which receives no federal funds and is not amenable to the strict management by agency officials envisaged by the Order -- cannot easily be said to have been "utilized" in the same manner as a Government-formed committee. Moreover, FACA adopted many of the Order's provisions, and there is

Page 442

considerable evidence in the statute's legislative history that Congress sought only to achieve compliance with FACA's more stringent requirements by advisory committees already covered by the Order and by Presidential advisory committees, and that the statute's "or utilized" phrase was intended to clarify that FACA applies to committees "established . . . by" the Government in a generous sense of that term, encompassing groups formed indirectly by quasi-public organizations "for" public agencies as well as "by" such agencies themselves. Read in this way, the word "utilized" does not describe the Justice Department's use of the ABA Committee. Pp. 455-465.

(c) Construing FACA to apply to the Justice Department's consultations with the ABA Committee would present formidable constitutional difficulties. Where, as here, a plausible alternative construction [109 S.Ct. 2561] exists that will allow the Court to avoid such problems, the Court will adopt that construction. See, e.g., Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62. Pp. 465-467.

691 F.Supp. 483, affirmed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and O'CONNOR, J., joined, post, p. 467. SCALIA, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.

Page 443

BRENNAN, J., lead opinion

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Department of Justice regularly seeks advice from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary regarding potential nominees for federal judgeships. The question before us is whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 86 Stat. 770, as amended, 5 U.S.C.App. § 1 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp.V), applies to these consultations, and, if it does, whether its application interferes unconstitutionally with the President's prerogative under Article II to nominate and appoint officers of the United States; violates the doctrine of separation of powers; or unduly infringes the First Amendment right of members of the American Bar Association to freedom of association and expression. We hold that FACA does not apply to this special advisory relationship. We therefore do not reach the constitutional questions presented.

I

A

The Constitution provides that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" Supreme Court Justices and, as established by Congress, other federal judges. Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. Since 1952, the President, through the Department of Justice, has requested advice from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary (ABA Committee) in making such nominations.

The American Bar Association is a private voluntary professional association of approximately 343,000 attorneys. It has several working committees, among them the advisory body whose work is at issue here. The ABA Committee consists of 14 persons belonging to, and chosen by, the American Bar Association. Each of the 12 federal judicial Circuits (not including the Federal Circuit) has one representative on the ABA Committee, except for the Ninth Circuit, which has

Page 444

two; in addition, one member is chosen at large. The ABA Committee receives no federal funds. It does not recommend persons for appointment to the federal bench of its own initiative.

Prior to announcing the names of nominees for judgeships on the courts of appeals, the district courts, or the Court of International Trade, the President, acting through the Department of Justice, routinely requests a potential nominee to complete a questionnaire drawn up by the ABA Committee and to submit it to the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy, to the chair of the ABA Committee, and to the committee member (usually the representative of the relevant judicial Circuit) charged with investigating the nominee. See American Bar Association Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, What It Is and How It Works (1983), reprinted in App. 43-49; Brief for Federal Appellee 2.1 The potential nominee's answers and the referral of his or her name [109 S.Ct. 2562] to the ABA Committee are kept confidential. The committee member conducting the investigation then reviews the legal writings of the potential nominee, interviews judges, legal scholars, and other attorneys regarding the potential nominee's qualifications, and discusses the matter confidentially with representatives of various professional organizations and other groups. The committee member also interviews the potential...

To continue reading

Request your trial
823 practice notes
  • Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 23, 2015
    • October 23, 2015
    ...\505\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \505\ Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 475 (1989) (Kennedy, J., In light of this statutory framework, it is clear that Congress delegated to the EPA the authority to administer CAA section ......
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 03, 2010
    • May 13, 2010
    ...evidence, but not the plaintiff, refers to only criminal, and not civil, defendants); Public Citizen v. United States Dep't of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 453-54 (1989) (rejecting a broad, straightforward reading of the term ``utilize,'' on grounds that a literal reading would appear to require ......
  • 17 F.3d 1446 (D.C. Cir. 1994), 93-5216, Washington Legal Foundation v. United States Sentencing Com'n
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • February 25, 1994
    ...Food Chemical News v. Benson, 498 U.S. 846, 111 S.Ct. 132, 112 L.Ed.2d 99 (1990) (citing Public Citizen v. United States Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 457, 461-62, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 2568, 2570, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 There is no evidence that the Advisory Group's relationship to DOJ fits this desc......
  • 206 B.R. 889 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Tenn. 1997), 95-01239-GP3-11, In re Uncle Bud's Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Sixth Circuit
    • February 19, 1997
    ...intended that a successful Chapter 11 debtor pay quarterly fees to the U.S. Trustee ad infinitum. See Public Citizen v. United States, 491 U.S. 440, 465-66, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 2572, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (literalistic reading of contested statute would have resulted in covering "far more......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
731 cases
  • 17 F.3d 1446 (D.C. Cir. 1994), 93-5216, Washington Legal Foundation v. United States Sentencing Com'n
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • February 25, 1994
    ...Food Chemical News v. Benson, 498 U.S. 846, 111 S.Ct. 132, 112 L.Ed.2d 99 (1990) (citing Public Citizen v. United States Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 457, 461-62, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 2568, 2570, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 There is no evidence that the Advisory Group's relationship to DOJ fits this desc......
  • 206 B.R. 889 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Tenn. 1997), 95-01239-GP3-11, In re Uncle Bud's Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Sixth Circuit
    • February 19, 1997
    ...intended that a successful Chapter 11 debtor pay quarterly fees to the U.S. Trustee ad infinitum. See Public Citizen v. United States, 491 U.S. 440, 465-66, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 2572, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (literalistic reading of contested statute would have resulted in covering "far more......
  • 217 B.R. 479 (Bkrtcy.M.D.La. 1998), 97-10737, In re Richardson
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Fifth Circuit
    • February 4, 1998
    ...literal application of the statute would lead to an absurd or unconstitutional result. See, e.g., Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989); Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Company, 490 U.S. 504, 109 S.Ct. 1981, 104 L.Ed.2d 557 (1989). In al......
  • 218 B.R. 528 (D.Or. 1997), 97-6138, In re Boulders on the River, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit District of Oregon
    • December 18, 1997
    ...not possibly have intended,' we need not apply the language in such a fashion." Public Citizen v. United States Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 470, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 2575, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (quotations and internal citations b. Pre-amendment Case Law. The ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 firm's commentaries
  • The Supreme Court's Spokeo Decision: Concrete Shoes For Consumer Class Actions?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 25, 2016
    ...had decided to make public is a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy Article III"), and Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449 (1989) ("holding that two advocacy organizations' failure to obtain information subject to disclosure under the Federal Advisory Commi......
  • Health Update - July 2017
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • July 25, 2017
    ...obtain information that Congress had decided to make public is a sufficient injury in fact) and Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449 (1989) (holding failure to disclose information under the Federal Advisory Committee Act constitutes a sufficiently distinct injury to p......
  • Concrete and Particularized Part II: What Spokeo May Mean for Class Actions
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • May 20, 2016
    ...notice and zip codes, are the references to Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) and Public Citizen v. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), which the Court cited as examples of instances where a plaintiff “need not allege any additional harm beyond the one Congress has ide......
  • ERISA Procedural Rights Violations Can Still State Federal Claims
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • July 26, 2017
    ...obtain information that Congress had decided to make public is a sufficient injury in fact) and Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449 (1989) (holding failure to disclose information under the Federal Advisory Committee Act constitutes a sufficiently distinct injury to p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
69 books & journal articles
9 provisions
  • Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 23, 2015
    • October 23, 2015
    ...\505\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \505\ Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 475 (1989) (Kennedy, J., In light of this statutory framework, it is clear that Congress delegated to the EPA the authority to administer CAA section ......
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 03, 2010
    • May 13, 2010
    ...evidence, but not the plaintiff, refers to only criminal, and not civil, defendants); Public Citizen v. United States Dep't of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 453-54 (1989) (rejecting a broad, straightforward reading of the term ``utilize,'' on grounds that a literal reading would appear to require ......
  • Part III
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 15, 2007
    • November 2, 2007
    ...definition of ``advisory committee'' ``[a]ppears too sweeping to be read without qualification'' (Public Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 465 (1989). The Court further emphasized that ``[w]here the literal reading of a statutory term would `compel an odd result,' * * *we must......
  • Clean Air Act: Interstate ozone transport reduction— Nitrogen oxides budget trading program; Section 126 petitions; findings of significant contribution and rulemaking,
    • United States
    • Federal Register May 25, 1999
    • April 30, 1999
    ...should be to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), fits with the legislative history on this provision. See Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 454 (1989) (if apparently plain language compels an ``odd result,'' evidence of legislative intent other than the text itself, such as the le......
  • Request a trial to view additional results