Sweetland v. Walters, 93-5411
| Decision Date | 01 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-5411,93-5411 |
| Citation | 60 F.3d 852 |
| Parties | Rodney R. SWEETLAND III, Appellant, v. Gary J. WALTERS, Chief Usher, Executive Residence, The White House, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Rodney R. Sweetland III argued the cause and filed the briefs pro se.
Matthew M. Collette, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, with whom Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Atty., and Mark B. Stern, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, argued the cause for appellee. Elizabeth A. Pugh and Steve Frank, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Justice, entered appearances for appellee.
Before BUCKLEY, RANDOLPH, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
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.
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. Sec. 552 (1994), Mr. Sweetland asked the Executive Residence for information concerning the Residence's kitchen staffing 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 grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction and that Mr. Sweetland had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Mr. Sweetland appeals the dismissal of his complaint.
FOIA directs agencies, as defined therein, to make certain information available to the public. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552. Mr. Sweetland argues that the district court erred when it concluded 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. Sec. 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, 100 S.Ct. 960, 971, 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (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. Sec. 105(b)(1) (1994). Thus, we rely on FOIA cases dealing with the responsibilities of EOP units in determining whether the Executive 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 authority to evaluate federal scientific programs, initiate and support research, and award scholarships. See id. at 1075; Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 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 Environmental Quality--an entity within the EOP with power to coordinate federal environmental programs and issue guidelines and regulations to federal agencies--was 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 its implementing 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. This is self-evident from a description of the staff and its duties to 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 as required 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 improvements to 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 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berg v. Obama
...even in the executive branch. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a claim against them under FOIA.18 See, e.g., Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F.3d 852, 855 (D.C.Cir.1995) (affirming dismissal of FOIA complaint where the plaintiff sought records from an entity that "was not an agency"); St. M......
-
Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President
...subject to his direction and approval, which they do without the delegation of substantial independent authority. Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F.3d 852, 854-55 (D.C.Cir.1995). In this case, if the operating relationship between the NSC and the President is as close as the Government maintains, ......
-
Citizens for Res. and Ethics v. National Indian, Civil Action No. 05-00806 (RMC).
...Because this case arises under FOIA, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F.3d 852, 855 (D.C.Cir:1995). And because its request for information under FOIA was denied, at least in part, CREW has standing to sue. See Zivotofsky v......
-
Main St. Legal Servs., Inc. v. Nat'l Sec. Council
...566 F.3d 219 (D.C.Cir.2009) (Office of Administration); Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 90 F.3d 553 (NSC)6 ; Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F.3d 852 (D.C.Cir.1995) (Executive Residence)7 ; Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288 (Task Force on Regulatory Relief); Rushforth v. Council of Econ. Ad......
-
Fixing FACA: the case for exempting presidential advisory committees from judicial review under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
...at 142-43. (211.) Id. at 156. (212.) See Armstrong v. Executive Office of President, 90 F.3d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Sweetland v. Waters, 60 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. (213.) See Armstrong, 90 F.3d 553; Rushforth v. Council of Econ. Advisors, 762 F.2d 1038 (D.C. Cir. 1985). (214.) See generally Arms......