Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President

• Decision Date: 14 February 1995
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 89-142 (CRR).
• Citation: 877 F. Supp. 690
• Parties: Scott ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

877 F. Supp. 690

Scott ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 89-142 (CRR).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

February 14, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Michael E. Tankersley, attorney for Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, argued the case, for plaintiffs. With him on the briefs was Alan B. Morrison, attorney for Public Citizen Litigation Group.

Anthony J. Coppolino and Jason R. Baron, attorneys, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Washington, DC, argued, for defendants. With them on the briefs were Frank W. Hunger, Asst. U.S. Atty. Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, Eric H. Holder, U.S. Atty. for District of Columbia, David J. Anderson, Elizabeth A. Pugh, Peter D. Coffman, and Carol Federighi, attorneys, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Washington, DC.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.

                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
                INTRODUCTION ..........................................................   694
                PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................................................   695
                STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................   696
                

                FACTS .....................................................................   697
                    A. THE RECORDKEEPING STATUTES .........................................   698
                    B. THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL                         699
                DISCUSSION ................................................................   699
                 I. THE "LAW OF THE CASE" DOCTRINE DOES NOT BAR THE COURT
                    FROM DECIDING THE STATUS OF THE NSC BECAUSE THE ISSUE
                    HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DECIDED .......................................   699
                II. THE COURT FINDS THAT THE NSC IS AN AGENCY BECAUSE THE
                    NSC IS AN ESTABLISHMENT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND
                    EXERCISES SUBSTANTIAL INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY SUCH
                    THAT IT DOES NOT SOLELY RENDER ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
                    TO THE PRESIDENT ......................................................   700
                    A. The NSC Meets The First Prong Of The Agency Test Because It Is An
                       Establishment In The Executive Branch That Has A Separate Staff And
                       A Firm Structure ............................................   700
                    B. The NSC Meets The Second Prong Of The Agency Test Because It
                       Exercises Substantial Independent Authority Through The Performance
                       Of The Traditional Agency Tasks Of Rulemaking And Adjudication, And
                       Because It Performs Many Functions Independently Of the President      701
                       1. The NSC Performs The Traditional Agency Functions Of Rulemaking
                          And Adjudication ................................................   701
                       2. The NSC Exercises Substantial Authority Independently Of The
                          President In Key Policy Areas ...................................   702
                III. THE COURT'S FINDING THAT THE NSC IS AN AGENCY FOLLOWS
                     THIS CIRCUIT'S PRECEDENT .............................................   703
                IV. IN FINDING THAT THE NSC IS AN AGENCY, SUBJECT TO THE
                    FOIA, THE COURT HOLDS THAT THE NSC MUST MAINTAIN AND
                    PRESERVE ITS RECORDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL
                    RECORDS ACT, EXCEPT WHEN HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS OF THE
                    NSC ACT SOLELY TO ADVISE AND ASSIST THE PRESIDENT. IN
                    THAT LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCE, THE PRA, RATHER THAN THE
                    FRA SHALL APPLY .......................................................   704
                V.  THE NSC HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXPLANATION
                    AS TO WHY IT HAS SUDDENLY DECLARED THAT IT IS NOT
                    AN AGENCY .............................................................   706
                VI. THE COURT'S FINDING THAT THE NSC IS AN AGENCY DOES NOT
                    UNCONSTITUTIONALLY INTRUDE ON THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT
                    BECAUSE APPLYING THE FOIA TO THE NSC WOULD NOT
                    CAUSE UNDUE DISCLOSURE OF SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY
                    DOCUMENTS .............................................................   706
                CONCLUSION ................................................................   707
                EXHIBIT A: PRESIDENT CLINTON'S MEMORANDUM
                    A. MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENT CLINTON ON "ACCESS TO NSC
                       RECORDS" DATED MARCH 24, 1994 ......................................   708
                EXHIBIT B: NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL MEMORANDA
                    A.  MEMORANDUM OF WILLIAM H. ITOH, NATIONAL SECURITY
                        COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ON "INSTRUCTIONS ON
                        PRESIDENTIAL STATUS OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
                        AND REVISED DISCLOSURE AND DISPOSITION POLICY"
                        DATED MARCH 25, 1994 ..............................................   709
                    B.  MEMORANDUM OF WILLIAM H. ITOH, NATIONAL SECURITY
                        COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ON "RECORDKEEPING
                        GUIDANCE" DATED MAY 8, 1993 .......................................   711
                EXHIBIT C: GUIDELINES FOR COMPONENTS OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE
                           OF THE PRESIDENT
                    A.  LETTER FROM JASON R. BARON, ATTORNEY FOR UNITED
                        STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TO MICHAEL TANKERSLEY
                        ATTORNEY FOR PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP                          715
                    B.  OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION'S MEMORANDUM ON "DIRECTIVE
                        ON RECORDS MANAGEMENT OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS" ...............   715
                

                    C.  OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE'S
                    MEMORANDUM ON "ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS".........   728
                    D.  OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE'S
                    MEMORANDUM ON "ELECTRONIC MAIL MODIFICATIONS".............   732
                    E.  OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE'S
                    MEMORANDUM ON "MONITORING ELECTRONIC MAIL" ...............   734
                    F.  OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY'S MEMORANDUM
                    ON "ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS" ...................   734
                    G.  OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET'S MEMORANDUM ON
                    "NEW RECORDKEEPING GUIDANCE" .............................   738
                    H.  OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY'S MEMORANDUM
                    ON "NEW RECORDKEEPING GUIDANCE" ..........................   739
                    I.  COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY'S MEMORANDUM
                    ON "NEW RECORD-KEEPING DIRECTIVE ISSUED" .................   739
                EXHIBIT D: PROPOSED REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
                AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION ....................................   740
                

INTRODUCTION

Despite a long history of acting as an "agency," and after admitting it was an agency, and thus subject to the Federal Records Act in this litigation, and notwithstanding a long practice of processing records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the President and the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council suddenly changed course in 1994 declaring that the National Security Council is not an agency and thus not subject to the Federal Records Act. (Copies of the declarations are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A, Mem. of President Clinton on "Access to NSC Records" dated March 24, 1995, and Exhibit B, Mem. of William H. Itoh, National Security Council Executive Secretary, on "Instructions on Presidential Status of the National Security Council and Revised Disclosure and Disposition Policy" dated March 25, 1994). In doing this on March 24 and 25, 1994, (See Exhibits A and B), the Defendants would have the Court ignore the facts that the National Security Council ("NSC") performs rulemaking and adjudication and functions independently of the President in many areas. Moreover, the NSC has operated as an agency, subject to the Freedom of Information Act, which requires that it must maintain and preserve its records in accordance with the Federal Records Act.

In particular, the Defendants contend that the NSC it not an agency, because its sole function is to advise and assist the President. The Court finds, however, that this contention is incorrect because the NSC performs traditional agency functions and operates independently of the President in many areas. Moreover, their contention that this decision will intrude on the exercise of Presidential powers and responsibilities is also wrong because Congress, in enacting the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), specifically provided that material relating to national security shall not be disclosed.

In this case, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants are barred from asserting that the NSC is not an agency, because the Defendants conceded that it is an agency in the two prior Court of Appeals' opinions. See Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282 (D.C.Cir. 1991); Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C.Cir.1993). In addition, the NSC has stated that:

The NSC does ... acknowledge that documents received or created pursuant to the inter-agency process of the NSC are agency records for the purposes of the FOIA....

(Joint Statement of Facts ¶ 171 (December 8, 1992)).

The Plaintiffs also claim that the NSC is an agency because the NSC is an establishment in the Executive Branch that exercises authority independently of the President by performing adjudicatory and rulemaking functions and by performing duties in many key areas. Last, the Plaintiffs assert that a finding by the Court that the NSC is an agency does not raise any constitutional concerns because the FOIA exempts from disclosure documents that relate to sensitive national security matters.

Upon a careful consideration of the facts of this case, the Court concludes that the NSC is an agency, subject to the FOIA, and that it must maintain and preserve its records in accordance with the Federal Records Act, except when high level officials of the NSC are acting solely in their capacity to advise and assist the President. Consequently, the Court shall declare the NSC's recently changed guidelines¹, classifying its records as "Presidential" Records, contrary to history, past practice and the law. (A copy of the old guidelines that were revoked by the March 25, 1994 declaration is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B). Moreover, the Archivist shall be directed to perform her obligations with respect to NSC records under the...