ML20127F905

Forwards 840430 Supreme Court Decision on Sunshine Act. Portion of Document Withheld

ML20127F905
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/21/1984
From:	Plaine H NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Gilinsky, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20127F888	List: IA-85-172, Forwards 840430 Supreme Court Decision on Sunshine Act. Portion of Document Withheld ML20127F885 ML20127F905
References
FOIA-85-172 NUDOCS 8506250287
Download: ML20127F905 (5)

Text

,

1

~

\\

UNITI$ STATE 3I

[ }ggI NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

s w,..

- s. s.

.gz

,l May 21, 1984 o,..

i

)

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky consnissioner. Roberts i

Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal l

FRON:

Herzel E. E. Plaine l

General Counsel l

SUB.7ECT:

RECENT SUPREME COtHtT DECISION ON SUNSHINE ACT

.On April 30, 1984, a n===45us Supresie Court dec.ided FCC v. ITT World communications, U.S.

, 52 L.W. 4507, a copy of wisich 1.s attached.

\\

\\

T l

l i

i f

a 8506250287 850416 PDR i:OIA DETJEN85-172 PDR 3

.. s.~ :..

7 3

The United States Supreme Court -

OpizIlOzas LAW WEEK

~,., s OPINIONS ANNOUNCED APRIL 30,1984 The Supreme Court decided:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-Sunshine Act LIBEL AND SLANDER--Malice Informal international conferences, in which Federal Federal appeals court, when reviewing indings of actual Communications C--inion subdivision and foreign tale.

malice in libel and other cases governed by New York communications administrations deliberate upon matters Times v. Sullivan,376 US. 254 (1964), must sacrcise its not within subdivision's formally delegated authority, do own independent judgment in determining whether actual not " determine or result in joint conduct or disposition of malice was shown with convincing clanty, and is not official agency business" withit meaning of Government in restricted by " clearly aroneous" standard of review under Sunshine Act, and thus are ut " meetings" that must be Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). (Base Corporation v. Ce= -,

beld in public under Act; moreover, inasmuch as such Union of United States.]ac., No. 821246). Page 4513 conferences are not convened by FCC and their procedures are not subject to FCC's unilateral centrol, they are not meetings "of an agency" within meaning of Act. (Federal Communications rammi<sion v. ITT World Com:nunica.

tions, Inc., No. 83 371).................. Page 4507

~

Full Text of Opinions ne.as.an MIN LAW AND PROCEDURE-False FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION rr AI,

PETITIONERS r. ITT WORLD COMMUNICATIONS, INC. IT AI.

18 USC 1001, which prohibits knowing and willful msaking of false,6ctitious, or fraudulent statements "in any ox warr or curzonAnz ro zum extrzn srArzs cocar'ar matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency ArrEAts run Tat mmer or coI.marA czacurr of the United States." encompasses false statements made agawa to Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Secret Service in course of criminal investigations. (US. v. Rodgers, No.

No. Em Argued Mand 22, =8 w Apre30,13 4 8 3 620)............................... Page 4510 The w Aa, s U. s. c. Isana). requires that meee.nrs" et a sad.

eral scener be open to the puhnc. Secnan 55 b(aX2) defmes a " meet,.

Ing" as the d.hrations erse Isast the member er ladMdus! atency

==*A-s reqmrod to take scien on behalf of the agency where such de.

Eberations deternme or nauhin the join ecodna er s'a.

of es.

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATlON-Racial eial aswy bannem.- Memben erp enoner reder 1 commumcassens t --- trec) parimpr.wah their European and canadina cean.

Discrimination,

urper.: in & t'-i ra-mve Pseceu, a series e essennen imended u facartase joie planning er sei caann-~-

fadhras thronsh an.

Writ of certiorari to review decision upholding federal change of information or mastery palkies. In this case, thrw TCC *-M.

district court findings that, while black employee had some membei who am*nud a georma e & Tcc s T;'-

=

• * .c cannniu e. a subdinueo er ine rec. ananded such agenau et

' production Eroblem.s. her disqualineation as machine oper.

which they were to a:zempt to persuade the European ma=as a esoper.

stor was motivated in substantial part by her race. and that

,,, h the rce in eneaarasmg compecoon in h everness ale i

employer's explanation for such disqualiScation was pre-munications marzet. R:,

m who as the time, along wth another textual, is dismissed as improvidently granted. (Westing-

.G,s. were m only American,.:.; that prended overi.

bouse Electric Corp. v. Vaughn, No. 82 2042) Page 4523 sees tal.co---*= and who oppond the omry of new a p-m-a.

i NOT1CE Thema oposions are sabiert is formal freision betere pubisesuom M

6n the erehmmary print or tw Unisad Sisies Reparu. Reasen see reonessed NOTE: whers k is deemed aissirsbis, a s91abus (baadnese) eri:1 he

/

. te neuf 3 tha Reponer of Deopena. Supreme Coun of the United States.

reisanad * *

• at the tune the epiause es assuse. The sytistus am.sutuses se H ubreper D.C. 20S43. of any typottsphicsl or other formal errert, an pan of the apuuan af the Caert but has been prepared by the Reponer et j erser that eartecuens may be saads before the preistunary print goes to th-for the son,siuence of the resect, mes !./aust Sasses,, p,r, sit anseber Co 200 U.s. J21. 3D.

presa l

See: ion 4

• • "'*" ' "" O.,2f4, '"-

52 LT 4507

I~

.' '52 LT_4508 Tite Unhd Staes LAW WEEK 5-1-84 s

o*

esd a r='====*r passen wth me FCC mgemahr k to ensleks any abative Proomes, h the hope that issebange et lassinutlen hasm m neseeisse wah sereign so ersaismia eris hhd k to acrossesus udght persuade the European antions to esoperate with ee a ne esaferemasa.

m-r--a-anesed the omsk seguisases won - FCC's poBcy d mesuragag

.-- -- - h 6e @ af l

^'

akra veres the FCC's ausharky and that. meroever, the Seasidae Ast

• • 1*"'"""'"w, = dana servies.

(

segund the Casakath Prosess to be held h puhue. m TCC denied

~

l the peninsa. Basr==h TTT Warid Comsminaissaans. las then Ansd Respondents, opposing the entry of new esapetitors, inits.

j met h rederal Distria Cours. sinnerir anssar that the FCC s asseth.

sted this #d--d-Tirst, r==p-d==*= Sed a rulemaking sises whk serusa andah a the Casseksam Presses wen akra vem petition with the FCC esmeerning the Cesahative Proenes the asests astharky and that assure meetings of the Cammkstive anestings. De petition regnestad that th FCC auscialan 887 Pness uma enterenis the sanshine An's aguremessa. The Dhana Intent to negcDate srith foruign guvernments er to bind h to

+

Cass enmissed the abra virm asum sa;

' areemde km er.

"^

a dared the FCC se empiy wish the s==='==

Am. "-- "

en eso.

agmements at the meetings, arguing that sneh negotiations sendnand appent the Ducria Caert's jedsmaat and the FCC's denial ef were idira wires the agenry's autherny., Further, the peti.

the s=l-aMar petism, the Cears of Appsah earned the Dutr'is tion aantandad that the Sanidne Act required the Conschap.

Cast's rubag est the Samahine An appind u smetiass of the Censume.

tive Process sessions, as " meetings" of the FCC, to be held in th Presma. but nearend the Dunrist Cast's duaimal of the akra v5 puhHe. See 5 U. S. C. Is52b(b).' De FCC denied the

'".i.""'

Faba h! petition, and t== panda'*= Sed an appeal in the Coiirt of Appena for se n.stri.t of Coh nwa cir h.

i

1. The Distrist Court hekedjurisemiss mr., ' ~s ahn vh.

W- ' 7ITIthanSedsuitintheDistrictCourtfarthe i

einha. Eashuive jurisdismen isr review of Anal FCC erders. each as the District of Colutobia. De -- -,' * ^ Eke.

k.J.'s rule.

4 FCC's denial at.

=' relsmahat patinsa. Ses by #===== ts the making petition, aa'*=adad 6) that the agency's negotiations I

)

. Cart of Appenh. I.misases mer not mee this nquirement by r*

with foreign oscials at the t'aa==hdve Process were tdays

. gasseing the Duaria Cours to es$ sin amism that h the easemme of the wires Oe agency's author'My and 01) Sat h mesdags of I

aserfs eder. Tet that is what r==r-4-== esucht to do, simas. la the Consuhative Prpcass innst exuiform to the 6,.

submannen, their====rlaim in the Distrist Court nised the same i===.

antesesht to adssa the amme ressrusses spaa FCC esades as did the of t.he Sunshine Act. De District Court 1Bsmissed the talers ransmakhr poenn that was daied by the FCC.

, ires count on jurisdictional grounds, but ordered the FCC to

s. The $smahbe As dess est requin the Cessahasive Pnnes on.

enmply with the Ann =We Act.8 Wa=paad-'* H'I ='"+=' 4' Jena he held h puhue.

and the t'avn,' vie =snin '"-- - =bd (a) Saak sessisms de not sumstenne a

• meeting" as deemed by The Court of Appeak'in the District of Cahunhia Circuit a sm,r=wn the samhme An does na saamd to desharansas of a guaran of a ambdmmen upon manen met within the subdmmen's far.

considered on ennehAntad appeal the District Court's judg.

i ment and the FCC's denial af the ral-a -W: pedtion. D l

many delsges d assharay. such deEberstmas kwfuD.y meld ast "desar.

D,se cou,t ge.- w.s a.rmed a,.rt and,,,ermed.e

.ee.r h.ts.Jmts d.a. n m ee aia, -

ne Co.,cof i,,.h s.,med e Dis,,ict Co.,,.a

.m.

w m

Aa. m.

rei mm.smam s

,an.

,,'"," "' " *****g,,

,,,,, M'g# *" '"s,",,',","j ruling that the Stmshine Act appEed to inestings of the Coo-C

,.)y sahadve Process. It reverned the Dutrict Court's Aiemient

,, g finharmy.

g th) Nor won the esamens in geestian a maatag er an,asvacy-of the tders vires count, basever. Kodng that exchasive jo.

wthin the==anar etthe 9==w-Am. The Geesahn #,e Presses was risdicdon for review of flnal agency action lay in the Cours of

emove=ed by the TCC, and ha pnesdarm were== abbe ae the Appeak, that court held that the District Cours panatM1=

FCC s emDatent entret could entenain under 5 U.S. C. I'lOS' a suit that alleged k

- U. S. App. D. C. -, epp T. 2d 2219. nverned and rensaded.

that FCC par esn i =da in the t'a=nh+4ve Process should be Fourzz.t. J., danvered the opman ist a=======ans Ceart.

enjoined as idira wires the agency's authority. De case was rmanded for consideration of the merits of r=epand-n+='

+

tdtm virse claim.

~

Jesnct Powz2.1. delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court of Appeals also concinded that the FCC errone-onsly had denied respondents' ral-' =Wr petition. Conast-The Govemment in the Sunshine Act, 5 U. S. C.1552b, est withits amrmance of the District Court, the Court of Ap.

mandatas that federal agencies hold their meetings in public.

peals held that the FCC had ernd in --aaw'n: that the This case requires us to consider whether the Act applies to informal international conferences attended by members of the Federal Communications Conumssior. We also must de.

's==im ss2b(b) prmim than cme whether the District Court may exercise jurlsdiction

" Members lof a Federal agwyl sinaD act jamsly madna w dispone of aguncy h other than in amman wkh tMs anne. Essept as ov:r a suit that challenges agency conduct as sdtru t ires af ter N*'

the agency has addressed that challenge in an ortler be l

reviewable only by the Court of Appeah.

sab.ection (c) cantains excepoana, the are mes relevam to e present case. I532b(aX2)dennes ansecog"as:

a I

I the de5heranons of at lean the ammber ofladividan! agency tasmbers re.

4 Members of petitioner, the Federal Communications Com.

quir.d to take action se behalf of the agency where such delibera: sons do.

mission fFCC), participate with their European and Cana.

termine er resah in the jeim emena er m r-'a-of ancial agency h" "

dian counterparts in what is referred to is the Consultative 8'"'* 83'*** d*8"** 'b' """ W " *"S"d* ""7

*"'1 " -

4 Process. This is a series of conferences intended to facilitate headed by a ceDessal body==="r== d of two er unsre ladividual members joint planning of telecommunications facilities through an ex.

... and any sahdivision theredantherned to an en bahalf dh ageaity.*

1 change ofinformation on regulatory policies. At the time of 7,e maria Ceart had p h ever the 't====h=, Ac claim mider.

tha co.ferences at issue in the present case, only three Amer-51:. 5. C. I532b(hx11.

ica". co porations-respondents ITT World Communications,

's U. S. C.1703 prmies in par:

Inc.. (ITT) and F.CA Global Com=u.ications, Inc., and

-The fem e prmeder for indcal review is the sp"ial stannary reww f

Westem Ur. ion Inte=stional-provided orerscas telecom.

p oceeder reimatim W sub9e maserin a court specised by.uute er, inuni:ations services. Although the FCC had approved entry in * *h**" "' t"'d'9"*'Y 'A'"d '.7 *Pplicahne fann of legal namn

... in a court of cornpeter.t jurisdiction

nto :ne ma-ket by other competitors. European regulators m

e AppealMed respedem'- na r,== h h had been relucta.t to do so. The FCC therefore added the e,,, of 3,,,3,,, ing.co._, to y.ngi:,te reepang,= 3.,_,2,,,,

3, s&ef a;es-M sd wrvices to the agends of the Con., _ _ go. n s. _

..,. s,-..

...g.,.

Sunshine As did as appy to the Consakstive Prenses nes.

In

. sisms. Tanber, the enan found the record "pstently hade-552b@ af the Sashine Amt miaires that am ost.

quate" to suppen the FCC's sanclusion that suandanse 'at In5s d 8n ag%e 8pm to the puhEc. Section 552tdaXI) nessions af the Consakstive Process was within the se'pe af

- -* 8 of atless the ann >

f ha mathart:y. 99 F. 2d, at 3247. Although romanding to 6- * **'id=2===7===6er= =r*=d = can assan -

as rCC, the soon suggesi.d ast the agency y nside,.

acuer och h deteradne er l

ation of the rh* petition, as the District Coun's ae.

i span i-I-'=a--a* sught anoot the goestion of

'II'I* gI e> - ss* *ba p

==,m

• =c-y by FCC anembers in these sessies we,,a.d m

t. decide wh er se D s sn lic, as the p.m.

Court could exerdse " h we & adtru e enstm and wbsthe the Sunshine Act apphes to sessions of the Co. a =setmr "d as ageruf as,-. de$

by 1552b(hk

~ "'

sahative Process.*

U. S. - 0983). We roerse A

E We consideimitanDy the J haitian of the District Conn Congress in a.Lg the Act's dd*h af'A rue.

to andain FCC action as odern wirse. F.zchneve jurisdiction ognmed that the mamheentive process emanat be amew+ d for rwiew of final FCC orders, such as the FCC's denial af antarely in the puhBe eye, arn a-.i g,,,,,,,,. disens.

ws.d

' rhwr petition, lies in the Coun af Ap. siens [that] clartfy issues and azpose verytag views" are a necessary pan af an agency's wak. See 3. Rep. No.

r m.--

penh. 28 U. S. C. 523423);47 U. S. C. 6402(a).

may not evade these,...bbra by regnesting the District 96-3H, at 19 0975L The Act's ;.-."

17.,,.a e

Court to ordain action that is the outcome of the agency's effectreely would prevent such discussians and thereby in>

erder. see Port grEaston Marine rerir==4 A A v. an. pair normal agency operstians witheat :.:..

.q.m,

what Tr--- d-* 400 U. S. 62, a Q970); Whig. pubEc beneftt.' Socian 552b(aXI) therefore Ilmtta the Act's der nerEatienc2 Jank v. Rank JqfNew Orleans,279 U. S. tu,

.y/. aks to r 4 *where scleast a quaram af the agen.

419-422 Q965). Yet theis whati=g =' = have sought to cy's members... candnet or dispose af af5cial agency busi-do in this' case. In _au-

. the mW fDed in the Dis. ness? S. Rep. No. 96 454, at 2.

trict Conn rsised the same issues and sought to enforce the.

'Dirse &

V==s,the amnberwho =%=A A he Cear t

same restrictions span agency condne as did the petition for' sahstive Process sessions, did not eaa*** a quaram ofthe ral---W that was dsnied by the FCC. See,p. 2, supra.'

..< c.ber r==i-inar

• h three anambers wers, The.yr..ghte ;

k MW: Judinal review of bowever, a quarms of the Tehaw mnmi=&- em w.

The==maa is a " subdivision... antharized to act en r

the agency's 6 h of these issues was appeal to the Court of Appeah as prwided by statuta.

behalf the agency." h c=awd=6 had delegged to the

' Die AdammstrativeL 1 Actantharinesanactionfar ema Mat y-a to 5155(d)Q) of the c===msew.

review of iknal agency action in the District Court to the ex-Act,47 U. S. C. 5155(d), the power to appene.# - c =

tant that other statutory r.

1-. for review are inade-far common carrier cenfficacian? See 47 CFR 50.215 I

quate. 5 U. S. C. 55 701, 704. Res t-*. eastend the (19831. '.fhe Sunshme Ae app 5es to such a subdivision as these provisions confer J L.liction in the present suit be-well as to an entire agency. 5552b(aX1A esase the record developed upon eensideration af the rah-It does not appear, however, that the T-ba====,t makmg petzt an by the agency does not enable the Ccun af e-wak-e engaged at these sessions in*deHberations [that]

Appeak fairly to evaluate their tdtru vires clairn. If, how-deter:mne or resuh in the johnt conduct ar Arlh of a55-ever, the Conn of Appeals fods that the admhetsve record is inadequate, h ansy remand to the agency, see Har.

,'"3 '

.d'h3' "3'" "

rison v. PPG Industrus,Inc.,446 U. S. 578,353-594 Q980),

or in some c:rchms*ances refer the case to a spemal maste, ammames, at han a week Mtin meettas. ma ums, pan Yami,ece g

see 28 U. S. C.12347(b)3). Indeed,inthe present case, the maner and whether tt wm he open er ens d. s ss2Wexu. Ter simmat

-- 'ari the areney's esem=Imane publictr eastery that one of the Ac:a.

Court of Appesh has remanded the case to the agency far We ~mrw that the Distnet Coun ~ ~ Perm h'*Ies.

5 ss2Wrxu. Mest eis.ed m.e=ngs am c he funher ge;S.gs.

e lacked jurisdiction ove respondents' ultre wires claim.

test Peanly to deane the hasted esope dthe smaas's regarmeensa. See * ' ~ ~

'The andar of the court of Appenb that thiadamuserstree rueerd was hadequase u supper.the TCC,s damal of a pe=nen for. ' - h se the genardy, E. R. Rep. No. ** amn. Part 2, at 14 QS76L F h" "*"' the term *deEberances* far the prevismay proposed issue of the scope of the TCC"s amharuy to neganste is ast before the term. naaembly er ' - i -- e---- vei

• E. R. usss, seth Cang 2d Sess.1532b(axm ar c.~4* s. s. seth Ceng., tse s Ceart.

'ITT erges that the ofens virm claim, anHbe the pecimen ime Sma)om-h order u Nxdale many a--=== which are taiseum!

' rat-=== Mar, fecanes as pan ra:bar than fumri agency sendue. It ns tree in neare.' 3. Rep. AM, at 10; ese id., at 15. $1milarly, earlier ver.

that the complanc in the Dstrict Court sanght. la addisism te prospecive mises of the Ass had app 5ed to any agency d=.====

the "emesern() the reLef. a dedaration that the t'=n===== had vanisted the Adunnurtrecrve

e

' Proc,dare Ac:. See App.71. As the g svamen of both the jedmal som>

joisc sendsc: er dispommon of agency beminnen? E. 3.11556, supen, i mee The Act now appEen only to de5berstime that'dsse,mmne er plaim and the pettuan for runsanaking was to regare the agency to eenden,an,k sa* the emoduct of *@cial agency h

• The intent of the revi.

hmere sessions en the terms that ITT proposed. ladsed, k osems goes.

mon einer'y was to pesimit ~hW-==== amazig agency w=a.

'==akta whether a emmplamt that sought only 3 declarstaan that paa sen.

See : Cong. Rac. 2m4 GM tremarks of Rep. TanemBL duct was unlawful would pruesnt to the District Court a emme er son re.

'Sinee the Consuhatt'e Freemos enamens as immoe bere, held in bh--

verry eve which h esuld esercise subject numerh. A Cf. Asene I.Ve ima. Co. v. Nemer:A,300 IL 5. ::*,240-2410937L in any eveu, 2375. the Camnussion's====Aaship has been redoeed to Ave. Pub.1 even if W ques. ion of W 1swhiness of the ageners pan seedue were the No. f".-:::, tu. V.1501(bL 96 Stat. 305 (eSective July 1, issst

'Caumson arriere "In tsaretate er inruign=== by wirw er sentral elemem ef respondem's judacial Wh the District Caurt ander endac* er radao tra-*= af energy,' 47 U. S. C.1133th), must abaain the deemne of pranary fanad2c:ian should have damsmed the aa4=we fr s: the t'--==

a cer=Scate of puhLe samvenience e-ascenst:y before m respondents could have chaLenged the agency's past emnduct by menos unocsak:ng consmacnon er ope.3-ion af addamanal ~*- Emm before the agency for a declarssary ruLag. 47 CTR I 1.2 n953L See Whi.

47t'.S.C.IDL Penects unac be obtained also far construcnon of radio ar, Ns:wact Een&. 2"9 U. S. at cl. Cf.: fe, rest Confr,rece v. Unised brennencmg sta inns. 47 U. S. C. I319.

$scies. 342 U.1. 5"D. 374, 577 (15t*L

==

-e==-

... =.

m--

m-y

• - - ~ - -

i' LW 4510 De Unfred 5 arcs IAW TEEK 5-1 84 J

Thii manmary innguage someE. T ud-tw*= atthe Comsahative Prusee.

cial agency 6 6 * *

- d-did not acadder eractspan C

= far %

plates disenssiam that esecevety predetendne ascial m.

emnie 3*

%= only formaDy delegated %

dom." See S. Rep. No. 95-3f4, at 19; accord sf., at 18.

" ywithin the f*

Such dismeeks must be "A=-tly focnned se discrete we emocinde that the sessians were nott proposals or issues as to canse or be Ekely to canne the indi.

aneaning af the Sunshine Act.

vidual W-% members a form nkly tra pod.

I tions ngardmg mattes pending or Ekely to arise before the ageney." R. Berg and S. h==.

An Int,. 01. Guide The C hive Process was ne essmened by the FCC to the C.w czt h the R-N Act 9 (1978) Gereinafter and its procedures were not subject to the FCUa vrnk,.a1 Ins-rm0E. Guide).* On the cross motions for amnmey contro!. The sessians of the C-a1*=4ve Process therefore judgment, however, res-6+= aDeged vene-that the are met r "n : *af an agency" within the --- 6 g C=a *-+ farinaDy acted upon spali +i-for eartifistian 1552b(b) of the h==h Act. The Act prescribes M st the Consuhatste Process nessions nar that those sessionsdures for the agency to indow when it holds meetings and t -- Sea mapra, raschad h trm =^== on partaenisr matters pendmg or partacularly when 2 chooses to close a --

Ekely to arise befon the C *-

• Rathe, the==he note E.

These provisions presuppose that the Act appSes providedgenen1backgroundinfonnationtothe --4 i -

only to1: " 5: that the agency has the power to conduct r

es and permissed them to engage with their foreign counter.

according to these,4-. And.y. " ='= of the Act to parts in an exchange of v>ews by which d-id-aheady snestags not under armey contro1 would restrict the 1;ypes of

. ' =W As we r+M that agency===63 could attend. Itla apparent resched by the C 2=% could be ":

have noted, Congress did not intend the m==h Act to en.

that Congress,in A nw.:ma:::: far the agency's son.

duct ofits own meetings, did not ~+-a 3-+- as well auch a ea= peas sisch i8i<-= ions.

The Court of Appeals did not reach a contrary result by broad =b +=*ve A45. upon agency processes. See 3.

fmdmg that the CM he's were del:berstmg upon mat.

Rep. No.95-354, as 1.

ters wuhin their fannally delegated authority. Rather, that IV ecct ir.fered from the members' * '== at the sessions y,. hoe nason, Ee reverse the Nde dtle h an ="*h d au%, ne fonnaDy delegstad, to engage of Appeals and remand the case for fartlier p.

-- % eon.

in AL*-- en behalf of the C*aa n--

The court then sistem whh Gis @

~

- bd d that these d**==Ma were deHberations that re-11"* **

suhad in the conduct of e5cial agency ha i---=. as the die.

canons play {ed)anintegralroleintheC W'spoEcy.

Atatxt a. I.Austa. in Ammam u the sen ser G rat. waaw,,,,,,

a ssahng processes." 699 F. 2d, at 1241.

D.C ouo: g. LEE. Sehsiw General. RICHARD E. WE.1.ARD. Asting

• • ""w"'

We view the Act di!!crently. It appBes enly where a sub. l,",Qg'g"g h T,I[N Yram dmsion of the arener deHbestes tman a-~'=

A+ a'e Anerieri, mRUCE E. FEIN. FCC G. oral tw e LANIEI.

Y M.

NG. Amieciate FCC Gcmeral ca. net and C GREY PASE.

w"" t.na snDcmston's fannaDv delerated aa'ha ity to take JR FCC anarney.=tth him as the bricf) for

=- GRANT S. tIWIs, i

~55c:al accan for the agen:y. Ande the reasomng of the Ne vert. N.Y. conn s. xDezEY. MARY JO EYSTER. CRARLES C PLATT.LEBOEUF. LAME.IIIBY & MACRAE.HOWARD A. WHITE.

any group of membes who anchange and SUSAN L LUTMAN.with him em the brief) Sur respondams.

w. m aF views or gathered fr:fmm.._ an agency bnei==.w m.my_

could be viewed as a "subdmsion... antharizedto act an be.

half of the ageney." The tenn"subdmsion"itself hM*=

l agency sne=bes who have been amberized to exetise far-me.as ano naDy delegated a=therhy. See Interpretive Guide 2-3.

Merseve, the mere expa=sive view of the tem sabamsian" UNITED S""A*r'rm. PETITIONER w.

adopted by the Court of Appeals would reqc:re puhhc atten.

LARRY WATNE RODGERS l

dance at a host of informal ec=vesations of the type Can.

l' gass understood to be necessary for the efective ardw* of ON WIC OF RE

"":ED 7 COUET Or agency business." In any eient, t is clear that thet Sunshme g,

l Ac does not extend to delibestions of a quer=m of the subdi-3 visict upon reatters not wrthm the subdivision's formaDy del.

g g 3*,a,,, _w Such deHberations lawhDy could not "de-W==a indicud far mahng fahe r'== to & Teder313

-c..

ersted authority.

te=:ne or resuh in the joint condue or disposition of c5cial rean Nausane m de Unhed Susan Sarut Serviec,in vs. -$

1 Egency business" within the meaning of the Ac:.," As the ola:in of 18 U. S. C. I 1001, widch asakes k a crfme knormsty and wS.

~

fnDy to make a false r=t m-a "in any aszter wthin the furtadictaan of

'The 0."ce of the Cha6msn of the'am--neve Canferunee of theany ag c.t. or agency of the Unitad States." Resp = d-e adedt.

l' tJened States prepared the interpreuve Guide at Congress's request, tedly had tied in tening the FBI that his wife had been kidnaped when.

I sexg), and af ter -e -- +-~- wtth the as. cud asinosa. See in fac, as the FBI deurn=ned apan L 2:.- + _ ahe had left him,d.

untsrDy, and in also taning the Secret Service ths:his wife was inw.),ud In.e-pretive Guide, at v.

a Memorandum in Support of Plam:!!f's Motion for Summary Judgment in a plot to --m the President when,in ime:. the Secret Serries, and in Oppoctaan to Defendar:r's Monon to Disanas er for SammaryJeds-af terinvas:igsting the charre and upon loca:mg the wife, was told by her ment tr. No. 80 04C (DC DCL pp. 6 1L 46 30; Plam:sf**s Reply Menars>

that she had naf t home to get away frcan t---

d-~

The Dm:rtet Coms d== tn seppen of Phzt!:r's Motion for Summary Juds nent. pp. 23-:L 3:smed respande=t's manan ta damnans the taw-am-e en the trounda thethe irrvestiganmis were not inauers *within the h -; th:6.* of the

=;.is pebt is made by & Lmorandum smeus curiae==hae A to respeeve agcees. as that phreae is med in i1001. The Coct of Ap.

W Cou:. by the American Bar Anascanan: *The... decnon [of the peals a.=.r ned, rey g an t:a deciaism in a prior ease that hmited W Cs=. cf Appaa.lsi pla us... agences in an n"Me Postion. UT)nder the tarin "Jumdicon* as used b i 1001 to "the power to unake faa! or hind.

ct=t's de sion. [ gency) members asy not meet we.h persons from sat.

ing M* *h

• shie the agency to diae: ass any Irhatter wt.hift the s"Qa} eentern Of the Such EsLfe The language of I 2001 csearty ---r-- criminal invesagamans stency a..hout ea pyng we.h the prveisions of the Sanah.ne Act.

a reset would have a pronoanced sand oe.leterious) e5xt on the interscoon caeted by & }"BI and Secre. Se-vice, sad nochmg in the legulatree

- N-w 5.E DarqMm that Congress intended a incre restrs=ve ranch for the