Rojas v. FAA
Rojas v. FAA
Rojas v. FAA
21-133
September 1, 2021
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Ninth Circuit, in a sharply divided en
banc decision, erred by holding that “intra-agency
memorandums or letters” in FOIA’s Exemption 5 en-
compasses documents prepared by a private, outside
consultant.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................ 2
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENT ............................................................ 2
ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5
THE COURT SHOULD TAKE THIS CASE TO
RESTORE FOIA’S ESSENTIAL ROLE IN
ENSURING THAT FEDERAL AGENCIES AND
THEIR PRIVATE CONSULTANTS REMAIN
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ... 5
A. Federal agencies have never been more
powerful, and less accountable—
especially when they work through
private consultants. ...................................... 5
B. FOIA plays an essential role in providing
oversight and accountability for federal
agencies and their armies of private
consultants.................................................. 10
C. The atextual “consultant corollary”
cripples critical oversight and
accountability for agencies’ private
consultants.................................................. 12
CONCLUSION ......................................................... 19
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) ........................... 8
City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC,
569 U.S. 290 (2013).................................................. 6
Dep’t of Commerce v. New York,
139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019)............................................ 15
Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users
Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001) .............. 4, 10, 17
Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for
Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) .................. 10
Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts,
492 U.S. 136 (1989)................................................ 12
Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976) . 10
FBI v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615 (1982) .................... 11
Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media,
139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019).............................................. 5
Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting
Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) ................. 2, 6, 9
Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) ........ 7
Milner v. Dep’t of the Navy,
562 U.S. 562 (2011)................................................ 11
NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,
437 U.S. 214 (1978)................................................ 10
Oklahoma v. EPA,
723 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2013)............................ 8, 9
Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067 (D.C. Cir. 1971) ....... 5
iv
Statutes
5 U.S.C. § 551(1) ....................................................... 11
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4)................................................... 11
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)..................................................... 3
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(8)................................................... 11
5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1) ................................................... 11
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 110 ................................... 8
Freedom of Information Act, Pub. L. 89-554,
80 Stat. 383 (1966) ................................................... 2
Pub. L. 104-231 (1996) ............................................. 18
Pub. L. 107-306 (2002) ............................................. 18
Pub. L. 110-175 (2007) ............................................. 18
Pub. L. 111-83 (2009) ............................................... 18
Pub. L. 114-185 (2016) ............................................. 18
Pub. L. 93-502 (1974) ............................................... 17
Pub. L. 94-409 (1976) ............................................... 17
Pub. L. 95-454 (1978) ............................................... 17
Pub. L. 98-620 (1984) ............................................... 17
Pub. L. 99-570 (1986) ............................................... 18
Regulations
48 C.F.R. § 9.406-2 ..................................................... 9
48 C.F.R. § 9.407-2 ..................................................... 9
v
Other Authorities
A Review of the FAA’s Air Traffic Controller
Hiring, Staffing, an Training Plans,
Hearing before the H. Subcomm. on
Aviation, 114th Cong., 2d Sess. (2016) ................. 13
Br. of Amici Curiae Freedom of Information
Act and First Amendment Scholars in Sup-
port of Respondent, at Parts I.B.–C, Food
Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media,
139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019) (No. 18-481) ...................... 18
Dept. of Justice, Memo. from Quin Shea to
Bob Saloshin, Exemption 5, “Chilling
Effect” and Openness in Government
(Nov. 7, 1977) ......................................................... 17
Elena Kagan, Presidential Administration,
114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245, 2332 (2001) ............. 6, 9, 10
Federalist No. 51 (James Madison) ........................... 2
H.R. Rep. No. 114- 391 (2016) .................................. 17
Harold L. Cross, The People’s Right to Know
(1977) ...................................................................... 10
Hearing on “Examining the Federal
Regulatory System to Improve
Accountability, Transparency and
Integrity” before the Senate Comm. on the
Judiciary, 114th Cong., Sess. 1 (2015) .................... 5
House Comm. on Gov't Reform-Minority
Staff, Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in
Hurricane Katrina Contracts, 109th Cong.,
2d Sess. (2006) ....................................................... 13
vi
1
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The Cato Institute was established in 1977 as a
nonpartisan public policy research foundation dedi-
cated to advancing the principles of individual liberty,
free markets, and limited government. Cato’s Robert
A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies was estab-
lished in 1989 to promote the principles of limited con-
stitutional government that are the foundation of lib-
erty. Toward those ends, Cato publishes books and
studies, conducts conferences, and issues the annual
Cato Supreme Court Review.
This case concerns Cato because it concerns the
critical role played by the Freedom of Information Act
in providing transparency and public accountability in
agency decision-making, even when—and especially
when—those decisions are outsourced to unaccounta-
ble private contractors.
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
“[T]he great difficulty lies in this: you must first en-
able the government to control the governed; and in
the next place oblige it to control itself.” See Federalist
No. 51, 322 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed.,
1961). This demand for governmental self-control
must be addressed in any viable system of self-govern-
ment. And in the American system, the Framers
sought to address it by baking multiple mechanisms of
1
Counsel for all parties received timely notice of amicus’s in-
tent to file this brief and have consented thereto. No counsel for
any party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person
or entity other than amicus or its members made a monetary
contribution to fund its preparation or submission.
2
ARGUMENT
THE COURT SHOULD TAKE THIS CASE TO
RESTORE FOIA’S ESSENTIAL ROLE IN
ENSURING THAT FEDERAL AGENCIES AND
THEIR PRIVATE CONSULTANTS REMAIN
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
The “consultant corollary” was birthed in 1970s
dicta from a D.C. Circuit opinion, Soucie v. David, 448
F.2d 1067, 1078 n.44 (D.C. Cir. 1971), during an era
where such “text-light,” Milner v. Department of Navy,
562 U.S. 562, 573 (2011), readings of FOIA exemptions
were common. And it has passed unexamined from cir-
cuit to circuit ever since. But this “relic from a ‘bygone
era of statutory construction,’” Food Mktg. Inst. v. Ar-
gus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2364 (2019), cannot
be squared with FOIA’s plain text. And if this atextual
expansion of exemption 5 is left standing, it will de-
prive the public of a sorely needed mechanism to pro-
vide oversight where it is needed most: in the federal
agencies’ interactions with their private consultants.
2
See Pub. L. 93-502 §§ 1-3, 88 Stat. 1561-64 (1974); Pub. L.
94-409, § 5(b), 90 Stat. 1247 (1976); Pub. L. 95-454, tit. IX, §
906(a)(10), 92 Stat. 1225 (1978); Pub. L. 98-620, tit. IV, Subtitle
A, § 402(2), 98 Stat. 3357 (1984); Pub. L. 99-570, tit. I, subtit. N,
§§ 1802, 1803, 100 Stat. 3207, 3207 (1986); Pub. L. 104-231, §§ 3-
11, 110 Stat. 3049 (1996); Pub. L. 107-306, tit. III, subtit. B, §
312, 116 Stat. 2390 (2002); Pub. L. 110-175, §§ 3, 4(a), 5, 6(a)(1),
(b)(1), 7(a), 840(a), 12, 121 Stat. 2525, 2526, 2527, 2530
(2007); Pub. L. 111-83, tit. V, § 564(b), 123 Stat. 2184 (2009); Pub.
L. 114-185, § 2, 130 Stat. 538 (2016).
19
CONCLUSION
The petition should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Ilya Shapiro J. Carl Cecere
William M. Yeatman* Counsel of Record
CATO INSTITUTE CECERE PC
1000 Mass. Ave., NW 6035 McCommas Blvd.
Washington, DC 20001 Dallas, TX 75206
(202) 842-0200 (469) 600-9455
[email protected] [email protected]
September 1, 2021