close X
10/16/2017

Progress has been made in appointing IGs, but more should be done

Earlier this year, we highlighted an important, troubling, occasion: the passage of the 3,000th day without a permanent Department of Interior Inspector General (“IG”).  Five months have passed and President Trump has still not appointed a watchdog for that agency.  At least eight other IG offices are similarly without permanent leadership.  Nevertheless, despite the need for greater effort on the part of the Administration, due credit should be given for the important progress that has been made in appointing competent individuals to some of the vacancies.

We applaud President Trump for nominating five individuals to IG posts since taking office.  In June, Robert Storch was nominated to oversee the National Security Agency.  In September, Mark Greenblatt and Christopher Sharpley were selected for the Export-Import Bank and Central Intelligence Agency, respectively.  And last week, President Trump announced his intent to nominate yet another two IGs—John Edward Dupuy for the Office of Personnel Management, and Gail Ennis for the Social Security Administration.  These candidates all appear to be eminently qualified.  Better, nearly all of them have previous experience working in IG offices.

It was inexcusable for President Obama to neglect to fill empty IG spots with qualified candidates, and President Trump has made important steps to rebuilding the federal government’s watchdog network.  We hope that the White House will make a special effort, however, to find IGs for Cabinet-level entities, such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  These agencies, in particular, have substantial budgets, and permanent IGs would provide an important internal check on waste, fraud, and abuse.

As we argued before, the absence of permanent IGs is concerning because it can reflect a lack of commitment to transparency and accountability in government.  Acting IGs cannot truly be independent.  As Senator Ron Johnson has commented, “[t]hey are not truly independent [because] they can be removed by the agency at any time; they are only temporary and do not drive office policy; and they are at greater risk of compromising their work to appease the agency or the president.”

President Trump should accelerate his efforts to identify and nominate strong, independent, and motivated watchdogs.  Taxpayers and the federal government only stand to benefit—as the savings illustrated on the new Oversight.gov suggest. We look forward to the White House’s future efforts on this critical issue.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
10/5/2017

Litigation Update: Ensuring Access to Records of the Executive Branch’s Interaction with Congress

In December 2016, Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) sued the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) after it refused to produce a variety of records concerning its dealings with the Joint Committee on Taxation .  The IRS claimed that all such records, which CoA Institute requested under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), would be “congressional records” exempt from disclosure.  Yet the IRS never conducted a search.  Instead, it based its determination on questionable guidance from its Office of Chief Counsel, which contradicts long-standing legal precedents for when agency records must be provided to the public.

The IRS moved to dismiss CoA Institute’s lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that because any and all responsive records were presumptively “congressional,” the court lacked the authority even to hear CoA Institute’s arguments.  Once again, the IRS founded its position on the Chief Counsel’s guidance, as well as generalized descriptions of a consistent course of “confidentiality” in IRS’s communications with the Joint Committee on Taxation.  CoA Institute opposed the IRS’s motion and explained that the agency’s position relied on a serious misunderstanding and misapplication of the law, prescribed an overbroad and unjustified approach to distinguishing “agency” and “congressional records,” and would sweep a broad range of records, which should otherwise be subject to the FOIA, into an “exempt” category.  As I have argued elsewhere, “[t]he mere fact that a record controlled by an agency relates to Congress, was created by Congress, or was transmitted to Congress, does not, by itself, render it a congressional record.”  Its availability instead depends on whether Congress manifested clear intent to maintain its control over it.  Here, the IRS had failed to meet its burden in demonstrating that intent.  How could the agency do so when it refused to conduct a search for the very records at issue?

During oral argument at the end of August, the Court expressed its reservation about the novelty of the IRS’s argument and its presumptive application of the relevant legal standards to exclude categorically all of the requested records as being “congressional” records.  The Court also questioned whether the IRS had properly moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than moving to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  Although the distinction may seem like mere “legalese,” it is an important one that affects what sort of evidence outside the pleadings the Court may examine and whether the Court lacks authority to adjudicate a claim arising under federal law (i.e., subject-matter jurisdiction), or simply has no basis to provide the relief sought by a plaintiff, (i.e., an order to disclose non-exempt agency records).

Yesterday, CoA Institute filed a supplemental brief, arguing that the Court was correct to question whether the IRS had properly moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  It is important that the Court reach the right answer to this procedural question.  It will have important implications for FOIA litigation.  The government, here and in other recent FOIA cases, seeks to collapse merits determinations—e.g., whether a requester has sought “agency records”—into jurisdictional questions.  The courts should not allow that to happen.  There is already an asymmetry of knowledge between requesters and agencies.  Forcing a requester to fight an agency on jurisdictional grounds, without the benefit of a search having been conducted and relevant records identified, is not only unfair but would provide the government yet another tool to evade its transparency obligations under the FOIA.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
09/28/2017

Cause of Action Institute Signs Second Coalition Letter Warning of Continued Congressional Interference with the FOIA

Cause of Action Institute signed a letter yesterday, joining a broad coalition of government transparency advocates, warning members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives about the dangers of mounting congressional interference with the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and, specifically, continued efforts to expand the definition of “congressional records” not subject to disclosure. The letter comes in the wake of the House Committee on Ways and Means’ motion to intervene in a lawsuit filed by American Oversight, a left-leaning government transparency group.

The letter reiterates much of the argument found in a May 2017 coalition letter from government transparency advocates urging Jeb Hensarling, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to rescind his directive that federal agencies treat any and all records exchanged with the Committee as exempt from the FOIA. As I have previously discussed, the mere fact that an agency possesses a record that relates to Congress, was created by Congress, or was transmitted to Congress, does not by itself render it a “congressional record.” The law instead requires that Congress manifest clear intent to maintain control over specific records to keep them out of reach of the FOIA.  Chairman Hensarling and the leadership of the Ways and Means Committee are pushing the boundaries of this legal requirement.

Cause of Action Institute continues to investigate Chairman Hensarling’s controversial, and legally dubious, attempt to frustrate public access to records of the Executive Branch’s dealings with Congress, as well as similar efforts undertaken at the Internal Revenue Service. The transparency community and the general public must remain united in protecting the spirit of disclosure and open government promised by the FOIA.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
08/15/2017

CoA Institute Sues FTC for Records Improperly Withheld Under Immunity Reserved for Congress

Washington, D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) today filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) for improperly withholding records related to the agency’s communication with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. CoA Institute requested these records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in October 2014.

The agency redacted records under various FOIA exemptions, but also refused to release information on the basis of the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a safeguard intended to avoid direct interference with legislative activities and protect members of Congress or their aides from judicial inquiry in certain court proceedings.

CoA Institute Counsel Ryan Mulvey: “The FTC failed to provide sufficient justification for its redaction of records. For example, the Speech or Debate Clause is neither a withholding statute nor a privilege that can exempt agency records from disclosure. The Clause is meant to protect lawmakers and staff from harassment in the courts. The FTC is the defendant in this case; the Oversight Committee is not. The FTC is abusing the Constitution to withhold records that the public has a legal right to review.”

The Speech or Debate Clause provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House,” Senators and Representatives “shall not be questioned in any other Place.” The Clause is meant is to bar lawsuits that would hold individual legislators or their aides liable for legitimate congressional activities or that could interfere with ongoing congressional inquiry. It does not permit other branches of government, let alone an independent agency such as the FTC, to redact agency records simply because they implicate congressional communications.

From the FTC’s response in this case, it is unclear how the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform might have tried to invoke the Speech or Debate Clause through the FTC or how disclosure could interfere with ongoing congressional activity. The agency never indicated which investigations would be jeopardized by the disclosure of the requested records. Rather, the FTC simply claimed the Clause applied without giving an explanation as to why each record should be exempt. Similarly insufficient explanations were provided for the FTC’s use of the recognized FOIA exemptions.

CoA Institute’s lawsuit provides an opportunity for the court to review the Speech or Debate Clause and to limit agencies from using it to justify withholding records.

The full lawsuit is available here. Exhibits are available here.

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

Media, Press Release Learn More
08/8/2017

Consumer Product Safety Commission Revises FOIA Rule in Response to CoA Institute Comments

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) finalized a rule today implementing new Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) regulations. The agency incorporated important revisions proposed by Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) in a comment submitted to the agency in in January 2017.

CoA Institute urged the CPSC to remove outdated “organized and operated” language from its definition of a “representative of the news media.”  Such language has been used in the past to deny news media requester status to government watchdog organizations like CoA Institute.  For example, CoA Institute took the Federal Trade Commission to the D.C. Circuit just to get the agency to acknowledge that its FOIA fee regulations were outdated and that it was improperly denying CoA Institute a fee reduction.

In deciding that case, the D.C. Circuit issued a landmark decision clarifying proper fee category definitions and the application of fees in FOIA cases.  CoA Institute cited this case to the CPSC and the agency took heed of the current case law, removing the outdated “organized and operated” language from its regulations.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission indicated that its revisions, which incorporated model language developed by the Department of Justice, focused on the nature of a news media requester, as opposed to the content of any given request. The agency further agreed that press releases could qualify as distinct work product.  Finally the CPSC added language clarifying that the examples of news media entities used in its fee category definition were “not all-inclusive.”

CoA Institute’s successful comment is just another small step in our efforts to provide effective and transparent oversight of the administrative state and, more specifically, to ensure agency compliance with the FOIA.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
07/31/2017

Senator Grassley Claims the Trump Administration is Rejecting the DOJ’s Opinion on Responding to Congressional Records Requests

At the end of last week, Senator Chuck Grassley’s office published a press release that claimed the White House “has committed to voluntarily answer all congressional inquiries, not just those from committee chairmen.” The White House’s response has seemingly resolved the Judiciary Committee Chairman’s concern that the Administration had wedded itself to what Senator Grassley described as a “nonsense” legal opinion issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”).

Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) previously reported on the OLC opinion, arguing that the Trump Administration may be charting a course into newer and less transparent waters. The opinion was technically correct in emphasizing that individual Members of Congress lacked constitutional authority to conduct formal, compulsory oversight.  But the OLC also provided a distorted view of the law by implying that federal agencies could ignore requests, or provide limited responses on a discretionary basis, simply because of a Member’s political affiliation or position in leadership.

In response to a rebuke from Senator Grassley, who requested that the White House rescind the OLC opinion, White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short clarified that the opinion did not, in fact, “set forth Administration policy,” but only “legal advice consistent with the research of the Congressional Research Service.” Mr. Short further indicated that “[t]he Administration’s policy is to respect the rights of all individual Members, regardless of party affiliation,” and to “use its best efforts to be as timely and responsive as possible . . . consistent with the need to prioritize requests from congressional Committees, with applicable resource constraints, and with any legitimate confidentiality or other institutional interest of the Executive Branch.”  Steven Engel, the Administration’s current nominee for head of OLC, has promised to revisit and clarify aspects of the OLC opinion.

Whether the White House’s response to Senator Grassley is a “commitment of cooperation” is yet to be seen. The Administration’s actual policy for responding to congressional inquiries is unclear, as CoA Institute’s ongoing efforts to investigate the General Services Administration demonstrate. Mr. Short’s letter and Mr. Engel’s confirmation hearing promises leave enough doubt as to the exact contours of the President’s transparency agenda.  The fact remains that Executive Branch officials have publicly acknowledged a “new policy,” which appears consistent with the OLC opinion.  Until more details about that policy emerge, it will be hard to evaluate whether, or to what extent, the White House has reversed course.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
07/26/2017

The GSA Has No Records on its New Policy for Congressional Oversight Requests

Last month, Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) detailed how it intended to investigate rumors of the Trump Administration directing federal agencies to ignore “oversight requests” from Democratic legislators.  Reports of the “new policy” sent the transparency community into a frenzy, particularly as they came on the heels of an opinion letter from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel that corroborated much of the scuttlebutt. As part of its investigation, CoA Institute sent a FOIA request to the General Services Administration (“GSA”) seeking access to various records concerning the agency’s policies or procedures for handling congressional oversight requests, congressional requests for information, and congressional requests from individual Members for the disclosure of agency documents.  We also requested copies of records evidencing any White House directives on pre-production consultation or review of requests from Congress or under the FOIA.

Last week, the GSA provided its final response.  The response leaves much to be desired, as the agency released only two documents.  The first is a February 20, 2015 order regarding congressional and intergovernmental inquiries; the second is a previously-secret April 15, 2009 White House memo that CoA Institute first made publicly known in June 2013.  The GSA did not find (or at least did not produce) anything pertaining to the Trump Administration’s new policy to respond only to Republican congressional leadership.

The General Services Administration’s failure to locate relevant records is curious because its acting administrator, Timothy Horne, previously testified before Congress that “the [Trump] Administration has instituted a new policy that matters of oversight need to be requested by the Committee chair.”  Admittedly, he clarified that the White House itself hadn’t distributed a finalized, written version of its policy, but it stands to reason that the GSA would still have some record of its effort to formalize whatever oral directions were issued by the White House.  Similarly, to the extent the GSA may now be processing any congressional disclosure requests under the FOIA, the agency should have records concerning those policies and procedures.  None were given to CoA Institute.

We have filed an appeal challenging the adequacy of the General Services Administration’s search efforts.  And we are still waiting for the Office of Personnel Management to respond to a similar request.  In the meantime, CoA Institute remains committed to holding the Executive Branch accountable to one of the most important principles of good government: transparency.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Blog, Media Learn More