Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington v. Office of Management and Budget
Legal Issues
The Application
CREW challenged the government's March removal of the apportionment database, arguing it violated APA procedures and transparency mandates. The government did not cite sufficient statutory authority or follow required procedures for withdrawing public access to federal spending data.
The Conclusion
The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in CREW's favor, ordering restoration of the database and disclosure of withheld materials. However, implementation may occur too late to affect the current budget cycle, and the outcome remains subject to potential presidential appeal.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
This case concerns the government’s removal of the public apportionment database, which tracks federal spending, in March. CREW sued to restore it. The D.C. Court of Appeals has ordered restoration and disclosure of withheld materials, though it may be too late to affect the current budget cycle unless the president appeals.
Summary
This case concerns the government's removal of the public apportionment database, which tracks federal spending, in March. CREW sued to restore it. The D.C. Court of Appeals has ordered restoration and disclosure of withheld materials, though it may be too late to affect the current budget cycle unless the president appeals.
Issue
Whether the government's removal of the public apportionment database violates statutory transparency requirements and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Rule
The Administrative Procedure Act and federal transparency statutes require agencies to maintain public access to federal spending information and to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures before removing such access, subject only to specified exemptions.
Analysis
CREW challenged the government's March removal of the apportionment database, arguing it violated APA procedures and transparency mandates. The government did not cite sufficient statutory authority or follow required procedures for withdrawing public access to federal spending data.
Conclusion
The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in CREW's favor, ordering restoration of the database and disclosure of withheld materials. However, implementation may occur too late to affect the current budget cycle, and the outcome remains subject to potential presidential appeal.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support