Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Interior
Case Overview
Environmental groups are suing to enforce the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a law designed to let the public know who sits on government advisory boards and what financial interests they bring with them. The specific fight in this case is over a government proposal to disclose the identities of its advisors to the plaintiffs only, under a protective order that would stop the information from going public. Which is a creative position to take in a lawsuit about a statute whose entire purpose is public scrutiny.
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
The Application
The Department of Interior's proposal to disclose advisor identities and financial interests only to the plaintiffs under a protective order, rather than to the public, directly conflicts with FACA's transparency mandate. The plaintiffs argue that limiting disclosure to a confidential protective order subverts the statute's core purpose of enabling public oversight of government advisory processes.
The Conclusion
This case remains active in the District Court for D.C. before Judge Randolph D. Moss, who must resolve whether FACA permits confidential disclosure under protective orders or requires full public disclosure of advisory committee membership and financial interests.
Case Analysis
Overview
Environmental groups are suing to enforce the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a law designed to let the public know who sits on government advisory boards and what financial interests they bring with them. The specific fight in this case is over a government proposal to disclose the identities of its advisors to the plaintiffs only, under a protective order that would stop the information from going public. Which is a creative position to take in a lawsuit about a statute whose entire purpose is public scrutiny.
Issue
Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires the government to disclose the identities and financial interests of its advisors to the public, or whether disclosure limited to the plaintiffs under a protective order satisfies the statute's transparency requirements.
Rule
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) mandates transparency in federal advisory committees by requiring that committee records be available to the public and that meetings be conducted openly, with the foundational purpose of enabling public scrutiny of advisory boards and the financial interests of their members.
Analysis
The Department of Interior's proposal to disclose advisor identities and financial interests only to the plaintiffs under a protective order, rather than to the public, directly conflicts with FACA's transparency mandate. The plaintiffs argue that limiting disclosure to a confidential protective order subverts the statute's core purpose of enabling public oversight of government advisory processes.
Conclusion
This case remains active in the District Court for D.C. before Judge Randolph D. Moss, who must resolve whether FACA permits confidential disclosure under protective orders or requires full public disclosure of advisory committee membership and financial interests.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support