Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of Energy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “[n]ot to treat in the same way documents shared with or received from the NEPDG, a body established by the President solely to advise him, and composed entirely of federal officials, would be anomalous indeed.” (internal citation omitted)
• noting consultants were “Executive Branch officials who play important roles in the formulation of policy”
• finding the district court’s order appealable under section 1292(a)(1) because “it require[d] the disclosure of documents for which the agencies claim[ed] no basis for non-disclosure beyond the argument already rejected by the district court”
• \Neither Exemption 5 nor the cases interpreting it distinguish between the decision-making activities of an `agency' subject to the FOIA and those of the President and his staff. . . . \
• documents prepared by presidentially-established policy group and held by eight different federal agencies were nonetheless “intra-agency” records because group was created solely to advise the President
• “The FOIA requires disclosure only of ‘agency records,’ which are documents created or obtained by an agency and under the agency's control at the time the FOIA request is made.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).