Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, 95-5070
| Decision Date | 23 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-5070,95-5070 |
| Citation | 76 F.3d 1232 |
| Parties | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. and National Legal & Policy Center, Appellants, v. Hillary Rodham CLINTON, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Larry E. Klayman, Washington, DC, argued the cause and filed the briefs, for appellants.
Daryl A. Libow, New York City, argued the cause, for appellees, with whom Thomas R. Leuba, Washington, DC, was on the brief. David E. Kendall and Nicole K. Seligman, Washington, DC, were on the brief, for appellee Hillary Rodham Clinton. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, and Mark B. Stern, Attorney, Washington, DC, were on the brief, for appellees John M. Quinn and Stephen D. Potts. Ky E. Kirby, Washington, DC, was on the brief, for appellee Michael Berman.
Before: SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SILBERMAN.
Judicial Watch appeals the dismissal of its claim that the Presidential Legal Expense Trust Fund must comply with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2 (1982), and must return all funds collected while in violation of the Act. The district court determined that the Trust is not a federal advisory committee. We affirm.
President and Mrs. Clinton established the Trust in order to help defray personal legal fees and related expenses incurred by the President in legal proceedings commenced after he assumed office but unrelated to any of his official duties. The Trust is administered by nine individuals who serve without compensation and who are authorized to hold, manage, and invest the funds contributed and to pay the Clintons' legal fees as necessary. When the Trust was established, several public announcements were made by White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers and others to the effect that defraying these legal expenses was in the best interest of the country and the presidency. Both before and after the public announcement, attorneys involved in developing the Trust and members of the Office of Government Ethics (Office) discussed the legal and ethical propriety of the Trust, and the Office subsequently issued a letter determining that the Trust is proper.
Judicial Watch filed suit against the Trust, the trustees, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Office, and Michael Berman--whom Judicial Watch termed a "de facto" trustee--seeking a declaration that the Trust is an advisory committee and injunctive relief prohibiting further actions by the Trust pending compliance with the Act and requiring the Trust to return all funds collected. The district court dismissed the complaints on the grounds that the Trust is not an advisory committee within the meaning of the Act because it does not transmit advice on particular public policy matters and its functions are primarily operational.
The statute defines an advisory committee as including "any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group ... which is ... established or utilized by the President ... in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President...." 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 3(2). Appellants claim that the Trust easily fits into the broad language of the Act. Moreover, with an eye to our precedents that have read implicit limitations into that language, appellants insist that the Trust's functions are primarily advisory and that the Trust was established for a governmental purpose and provides public policy advice. President and Mrs. Clinton created the Trust, it is alleged, in order to assist the President in performing his official duties by reducing the distraction of his financial obligations; and the public statements introducing the Trust reveal its official, governmental role. The Trust and trustees provide advice to the President, as well as to third parties, on the legality of and the methods for soliciting and distributing funds.
We think the government and the Trust are likely correct that the Trust is not primarily advisory in nature. Its main purpose would appear to be the collecting and managing of funds, and therefore even if some advice is forthcoming, the Trust would seem to be outside the statute. See Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. Gaus, 61 F.3d 929, 934 (D.C.Cir.1995); Public Citizen v. Commission on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Abraham, Civil Action No. 00-2431 (EGS), [51-1] [55-1] (D. D.C. 9/30/2002), Civil Action No. 00-2431 (EGS), [51-1] [55-1].
...because they are not providing advice or recommendations on an "identifiable governmental policy." See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, 76 F.3d 1232, 1233 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ("Accordingly, we have recognized that [FACA] is limited to [established] committees that provide advice on an identifi......
-
Farley v. Worley
...a Vaughn Index until ordered by a court after the plaintiff has exhausted the administrative process."), aff'd on other grounds, 76 F.3d 1232 (D.C.Cir.1996).18 However, we also find that the City misapprehends the Vaughn index requirement. The City cites Daily Gazette I and argues that a Va......
-
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Abraham
...to FACA because they are not providing advice or recommendations on an "identifiable governmental policy." See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, 76 F.3d 1232, 1233 (D.C.Cir.1996) ("Accordingly, we have recognized that [FACA] is limited to [established] committees that provide advice on an id......
-
Keeper of the Mountains v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
...of the deliberative process privilege." Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, 880 F.Supp. 1, 13 (D.D.C.1995), aff'd on other grounds, 76 F.3d 1232 (D.C.Cir.1996). Although the burden is on the DOJ and all inferences must be construed in the light most favorable to Keeper of the Mountains, the DO......
-
Public corruption.
...private suit against President Clinton regarding potential for undue influence stemming from donations to Legal Expense Trust), aff'd, 76 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. (360.) United States v. Project of Gov't Oversight, 531 F. Supp. 2d 59, 59 (D.C. Cir. 2008). (361.) Id. at 64. (362.) See United Sta......
-
Federal Transparency Laws Beyond FOIA
...v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 17 F.3d 1446, 1450, 25 ELR 21189 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 38. 5 U.S.C. app. 2, §3(2). 39. Judicial Watch v. Clinton, 76 F.3d 1232, 1233 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 40. Byrd v. EPA, 174 F.3d 239, 29 ELR 2150 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (holding that a peer review panel convened by an EPA cont......
-
PUBLIC CORRUPTION
...Oversight, 616 F.3d at 560. 345. 18 U.S.C. § 209(a). 346. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, 880 F. Supp. 1, 5 n.3 (D.D.C. 1995), aff’d, 76 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 347. United States v. Project on Gov’t Oversight, 454 F.3d 306, 309 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing Application of 18 U.S.C. § 209 t......
-
Public Corruption
...Oversight , 616 F.3d at 560. 325. 18 U.S.C. § 209(a). 326. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, 880 F. Supp. 1, 5 n.3 (D.D.C. 1995), aff’d , 76 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 327. United States v. Project on Gov’t Oversight, 454 F.3d 306, 309 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Application of 18 U.S.C. § 20......