Cheney Lawsuit? What happened? Help!

[DistressedAmerican]

Does anyone know what ever became of the Cheney energy task force lawsuit. Last I heard about it was following the big conflict of interest duck hunting trip. I've been searching all morning and all I can find are articles on the hunting trip. Nothing on if this was or when it will be heard in court. I'd really like to know what's up with this one. Can anyone help?

Distressed American
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm



In case you are not familiar here's an old article from CNN on the issue:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/22/scalia.cheney.trip/

[justiceischeap]

1. Is this what you're referring to?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/1270.shtml

<snip>
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP
Complaint filed against NEPDG, Office of the Vice President, for compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (“FACA”), and the Freedom of Information Act.
</snip>

[DistressedAmerican]

2. That's exactly what I was looking for

Thank you very much. I'll give the documents a read and get back with some comments. Awesome link!

[DistressedAmerican]

3. Looks like Judicial watch beat them on round one

The case was not thrown out and by my reading additional motions were ordered and the court ruled that several fegeral agencies must provide documents in thwe case. I can't find if anything has come down since this ruling. Are they reviewing the additional documents ordered provided for further action?

[TransitJohn]

4. It comes down to

they made Hillary's health care task force disclose documents, so turn about is fair play. Of course, I realize that this is wishful thinking, there are two sets of rules defined by party loyalty.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. Seems fair to me

The system is set up on legal precedents. That sounds like a good one to follow. Good news is that they seem to have required 5 or 6 federal agencies to turn over their docs. Wish I knew what was in them. I'm sure the legal watch folks ar following up but, it is unclear from their site.

Nice Land of the Lost Sleezak (sp?)! Bipedal humanoid lizards scare me. That's why I watch less C-Span than I really should.

[TransitJohn]

6. Sleestak

Or as Chakaa would say Sareesataka. All three seasons on DVD. I'm stoked, and they're my daughter's favorite thing.

[DistressedAmerican]

7. Finally found something

From CNN (I know they are the enemy):
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/05/dean.cheney/index.html

(snip)
(FindLaw) -- On June 24, in Cheney v. U.S. District Court, the Supreme Court gave Vice President Dick Cheney only a partial victory in the suit that seeks to learn how his National Energy Policy Development Group developed its recommendations.

The plaintiffs in the suit suspect that -- and want to find out whether -- there was extensive involvement and improper influence by private industry in what was supposed to be a government group. They note that the Group's recommendations had a decidedly pro-energy slant.

Cheney wanted the suit to be dismissed. Instead, the court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for further adjudication.

This case is laden with important implications. That is still true. Indeed, the Supreme Court may have avoided an ultimate decision in the case in part because of the political reverberations that would doubtless have resulted from their examining the separation of powers issues (read: the secrecy powers of the presidency) in an election year.

Scalia sides with Cheney, as expected

This case received a great deal of press attention because Justice Antonin Scalia refused to recuse himself from it, despite his duck-hunting trip with Cheney. And unsurprisingly, Scalia did indeed side with Cheney in the case.

But rather than write an opinion, Scalia joined a brief dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas that would have resolved the matter in Cheney's favor -- and resolved it on the merits, going into the constitutional issues involved.

[mattclearing]

8. I believe it was dismissed, if you mean the Judicial Watch one.

The GAO thing fell apart too, I believe, though I forget exactly what happened.

[DistressedAmerican]

9. Really?

Wow, that's disappointing.

I haven't found anything to that effect but, then again is't not the kind of event that they would issue a press release for. I have noticed that information on the case seems to stop following the decision discussed in my last post. Maybe that's it.

[mattclearing]

10. Actually, I"m pretty sure the GAO published all documents about it.

And they were up on the website. You should google for them.

[justiceischeap]

11. Unless I read it incorrectly on the Judicial Watch site

The GAO did throw out the case but I think Judicial Watch is still pursuing it. I haven't looked at the timeline but here's the link about the GAO throwing it out.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/3140.shtml

[DistressedAmerican]

12. That's a ray of sunshine

in the otherwise sad news. Go legal watch!

[Jim Lane]

13. GAO case and Sierra Club case are different

The GAO suit was dismissed on grounds of separation of powers -- the GAO, as an arm of the legislative branch, is constrained from interfering with the executive branch (by compelling disclosure of executive branch documents). The GAO decided not to appeal that dismissal.

The private parties bringing suit (the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch) were under no such disability, however. That case is still alive. Last June the Supreme Court sent the case back to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. The next round will come in oral argument before the D.C. Circuit on January 27, 2005.

The Sierra Club has a chronology (updated as of last month) at <http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/viewCase.asp?id=173> and a collection of key documents (the Supreme Court opinions, a transcript of the oral argument, etc.) at <http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/cheney_case/>.

[DistressedAmerican]

14. Great, Thanks!

That is really helpful. I wanted to follow up on the case on my site but had hit a bit of a research wall.
DA