American Friends Service Committee v. Webster, s. 81-1735

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Citation231 U.S. App. D.C. 265,720 F.2d 29
Docket NumberNos. 81-1735,81-1980 and 83-1025,s. 81-1735
PartiesAMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE, et al. v. William H. WEBSTER, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., Appellants. (Three cases).
Decision Date30 September 1983

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Civil Action No. 79-01655).

Marc Johnston, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., Leonard Schaitman and Michael L. Paup, Attys. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for appellants. Mark Mutterperl and Stephen Gray, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for appellants.

Marshall Perlin, New York City, for appellees.

Vern Countryman, Cambridge, was on the brief for amicus curiae, Scholars and Citizens for Freedom of Information, in 81-1735 and 81-1980 urging affirmance.

Before WALD and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges, and VAN PELT, * Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Opinion for the Court in Parts I-V filed by Circuit Judge WALD.

Opinion for the Court in Part VI filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG.

Concurring opinion filed by Senior District Judge VAN PELT.

                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                          Page
                  I.  THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS ...................... 35
                 II.  THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK ............................. 36
                 II.  JURISDICTION ........................................ 38
                      A. District Court Findings .......................... 38
                      B. The Government's Contentions ..................... 38
                      C. Analysis of Jurisdiction to Review ............... 39
                          1. Exceptions from Judicial Review .............. 39
                          2. The Effect of Kissinger on Reviewability ..... 40
                          3. Reviewabilty of the Agency Actions
                              in this Case ................................ 41
                          4. Conclusion ................................... 45
                 IV.  STANDING ............................................ 45
                      A. District Court Findings .......................... 45
                      B. The Government's Contentions ..................... 47
                      C. Analysis of Standing ............................. 49
                          1. The "Zone of Interests" Test ................. 49
                          2. The Effect of Kissinger on Plaintiffs'
                              Standing .................................... 52
                          3. The "Zone" Reflected in the Statutory
                              Language .................................... 53
                          4. The "Zone" Reflected in the Legislative
                              History ..................................... 55
                          5. Conclusion ................................... 57
                  V.  COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISPOSAL LAWS ................... 57
                      A. District Court Findings .......................... 57
                      B. The Government's Contentions ..................... 59
                      C. Analysis of Alleged Disposal Violations .......... 60
                          1. Scope of Review .............................. 60
                          2. Statutory Responsibilities ................... 60
                          3. Review of Agency Action ...................... 64
                              a. The 1975 and 1976 Schedules .............. 64
                              b. The 1977 Schedule ........................ 67
                          4. Conclusion ................................... 68
                 VI.  RESTRICTED USE RECORDS .............................. 69
                      A. The Revelant NARS Function ....................... 70
                      B. The Relevant Laws Restrilcting Use of
                          Records ......................................... 70
                          1. Tax Returns and Tax Return Information ....... 70
                          2. Grand Jury Materials ......................... 71
                          3. Electronic Surveillance (Title III)
                              Materials ................................... 72
                      C. The Meaning of Section 2906 ...................... 73
                      D. Conclusion ....................................... 77
                WALD, Circuit Judge
                

These consolidated appeals challenge orders of the district court enjoining the disposal of records by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and directing the National Archives and Records Service ("Archives" or "NARS") and the FBI jointly to develop a detailed records retention plan and records disposal schedules. 1 Appellants are the Attorney General, the Director of the FBI, the Administrator of the General Services Administration ("GSA"), the Archivist of the United States, and various other officials of the FBI and NARS. 2 Appellees are individuals and organizations that claim that the FBI's records destruction program violates various laws and interferes with their rights to, and interests in, access to FBI records. We find that: (1) appellees may state their claim under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") because the records disposal statutes do not preclude judicial review by committing their implementation to agency discretion; (2) at least some appellees in this case have standing under the records disposal statutes and are arguably within the zone of interests protected by those statutes; (3) the district court correctly found that the FBI and NARS failed to carry out their statutory responsibilities in developing and approving the 1975 and 1976 records disposal schedules for FBI field office files; (4) the district court was only in part correct that the 1977 records disposal schedule for FBI headquarters files was in violation of the records laws; and (5) the district court lacked authority to order a NARS records management inspection of three categories of restricted use records--tax returns and return information, grand jury materials, and electronic surveillance materials.

I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS

Appellees initiated this action on June 26, 1979, alleging that the FBI and NARS had ignored for many years the statutes regulating the management and disposal of federal records. Appellees sought both to enjoin the FBI from destroying its records and to make the FBI's files into permanent records retained by the National Archives. On January 10, 1980, after reviewing "[v]oluminous memoranda and other documents" and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court, per the Honorable Harold Greene, issued a preliminary injunction halting destruction of FBI records. American Friends Service Committee v. Webster, 485 F.Supp. 222, 225, 236 (D.D.C.1980). The district court also ordered NARS to develop an FBI records retention plan that met the statutory standards discussed in its opinion and ordered the FBI to formulate records control schedules consistent with that plan. Id. at 236. The court stated that it would lift the injunction upon its approval of the plan and schedules. Id. The government did not appeal this order.

The government subsequently requested exemptions from the ban on destruction for certain classes of records. In orders dated February 20, April 3, and April 22, 1980, the district court granted the government's motions in part and denied them in part, amending the preliminary injunction accordingly. 3 The government filed a notice of appeal from the district court's orders of April 3, and April 22, 1980, but subsequently dismissed the appeal voluntarily. On April 15, 1980, the government sought unsuccessfully to dissolve the district court's preliminary injunction for lack of standing--relying on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 100 S.Ct. 960, 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980). See American Friends Service Committee v. Webster, 494 F.Supp. 803 (D.D.C.1980). The government did not appeal the district court's denial of its motion.

In February 1981, more than a year after the district court imposed the preliminary injunction, the court called a hearing to review the government's apparent lack of progress in developing and submitting to the court for approval the records retention plan and records control schedules. In a memorandum opinion and order of June 9, 1981, the district court concluded:

that no significant action had been taken to carry out the Court's mandate; that the government had no legitimate excuse for its failure to act; and that, except for vague and indefinite plans, no implementing action was being undertaken.

American Friends Service Committee v. Webster, No. 79-1655, mem. op. at 3-4 (D.D.C. June 9, 1981) (footnote omitted), reprinted in Appendix ("App.") at 39, 41-42. In light of this recalcitrance, the district court set forth detailed remedial procedures in its order "to insure compliance with the laws enacted by the Congress and with its own orders." See App. at 42, 52-56. The procedural requirements included substantial standard-setting and record examination roles for NARS personnel, who were to receive "full and complete access to all of the files and records of the FBI covered by the [January 10, 1980 order]." App. at 53-55. The "bottom line" of the court's order was for NARS:

to submit a recommended retention plan to the FBI by September 28, 1981, [for] the FBI ... to submit a records disposition schedule based on that plan by October 16, 1981, and [for] both agencies ... [to] file with the Court detailed retention plans and disposition schedules by November 9, 1981.

App. at 46, 55. On July 1, 1981, the district court issued an order that made the January 10, 1980 injunction (as amended) permanent. 4 Our decision today reviews the government's appeals of the district court's orders of June 9, and July 1, 1981.

Subsequent orders of the district court dealt in piece-meal fashion with government motions to bar NARS from inspecting certain restricted documents and to permit the FBI to dispose of some other limited categories of materials. 5 These proceedings culminated in the district court's October 20, 1982 memorandum opinion and order, which in large part denied...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
  • People's Counsel v. Public Service Com'M
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • 28 Marzo 1984
    ...analysis of the effects of judicial review on the agency, the plaintiffs and the courts." American Friends Service Committee v. Webster, 231 U.S.App. D.C. ___, ___, 720 F.2d 29, 40 n. 10 (1983).3 More specifically, this approach to determining the reviewability of actions "committed to agen......
  • Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, Civ. A. No. 89-142 (CRR).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 6 Enero 1993
    ...rights may have been affected by the actions of government to have access to the records under the FRA. See American Friends Service Comm'n v. Webster, 720 F.2d 29 (D.C.Cir.1983); Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282, Therefore, each agency head must "maintain an active, continuing program for t......
  • Hobson v. Wilson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 17 Agosto 1984
    ...185 We disagree. In American Friends Service Committee v. Webster, No. 79-1655 (D.D.C. July 1, 1981), aff'd in relevant respects, 720 F.2d 29 (D.C.Cir.1983), Judge Harold Greene issued an order halting the FBI destruction of records on the ground that the FBI and the National Archives and R......
  • NAT. ASS'N OF PATIENTS ON HEMODIALYSIS AND TRANSPLANTATION, INC. v. Heckler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 11 Junio 1984
    ...for review. 23 See, e.g., Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Schweiker, 669 F.2d at 813; American Friends Service Comm. v. Webster, 720 F.2d 29, 60 (D.C.Cir.1983). 24 Curiously, defendants also assert that it will "be difficult and costly to recoup from various employer plan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT