Docket for 24-1246
|
| May 21 2025 | Application (24A1122) for a stay, submitted to The Chief Justice. | | Main DocumentLower Court Orders/OpinionsProof of Service | | May 21 2025 | Response to application (24A1122) requested by The Chief Justice, due by Noon (EDT), on May 23, 2025. | | | | May 23 2025 | Response to application from respondent Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed. | | Main DocumentMain DocumentProof of Service | | May 23 2025 | Order entered by The Chief Justice: Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants and the response filed thereto, it is ordered that the April 15, 2025, and May 20, 2025 orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 25-cv-511, are hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. | | | | May 23 2025 | Brief amicus curiae of Government Transparency Scholars filed. | | Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service | | May 23 2025 | Brief amicus curiae of American Oversight filed. | | Main DocumentProof of Service | | May 24 2025 | Reply of applicant U.S. Doge Service, et al. filed. | | ReplyProof of Service | | Jun 06 2025 | Application (24A1122) referred to the Court. | | | | Jun 06 2025 | The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. Additionally, applicants suggested this Court treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari; doing so, the petition is granted (case No. 24-1246). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s order denying a writ of mandamus is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of this order. Cf. In re United States, 583 U. S. 29 (2017) (per curiam). The portions of the District Court’s April 15 discovery order that require the Government to disclose the content of intra–Executive Branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored. Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity’s ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications. Cf. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U. S. 367, 385 (2004) (“[S]pecial considerations control when the Executive Branch’s interests in maintaining the autonomy of its office and safeguarding the confidentiality of its communications are implicated.”). On remand of the case, the Court of Appeals should take appropriate action to narrow the April 15 discovery order consistent with this order. The April 15, 2025, and May 20, 2025, orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 25-cv-511, are stayed pending remanded consideration at the Court of Appeals, and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would deny the application. | | |
|