Pierce County v. Guillen

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that courts should interpret § 409 narrowly because it “impede[s] the search for the truth”
• explaining that the court should look to the purpose for which the information is compiled in determining whether it was compiled to meet a statutory duty
• holding that § 409 protects “not just the information an agency generates, i.e., compiles, for § 152 purposes, but also any information that an agency 4 collects from other sources for § 152 purposes,” and further holding that § 409 does not violate Commerce Clause
• observing that courts do not presume that Congress would perform “a useless act”
• upholding a Commerce Clause challenge because “Congress could reasonably believe” that the statute affected interstate commerce
• upholding a Commerce Clause challenge because \Congress could reasonably believe\ that the statute affected interstate commerce

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).