 |
 |
 |
|
|
JW Files Brief with U.S. Supreme Court in Energy Task Force Case After a string of legal losses to Judicial Watch, lawyers for Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force are employing a last-ditch, desperate tactic by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. They have filed a petition with the Court in a last ditch attempt to avoid responsibility for violating federal law. In response, Judicial Watch filed a "Brief in Opposition of Respondent," asking the Supreme Court to deny the Vice President's petition, effectively forcing the Energy Task Force to obey prior court orders and "fully comply with [Judicial Watch's] discovery requests." "[The Energy Task Force] now seeks relief from this Court, having defied repeatedly the discovery orders of the district court, and asserting a wholly unprecedented theory of immunity from discovery," Judicial Watch noted in its brief. "The proposals developed by the [Energy Task Force] are moving through Congress, while critical information regarding how these proposals were developed remains secret from the public. This transparent strategy of 'running out the clock' should not be tolerated." At issue in Judicial Watch's case are records related to the Vice President's Energy Task Force, known as the National Energy Policy Development Group. In July 2001, Judicial Watch filed suit against the task force, alleging that private individuals representing energy interests were invited to participate in secret, closed-door meetings in order to develop the nation's energy policy. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with consulting with energy lobbyists about energy policy, the law requires such meetings to be open to the public. For more than two years, Judicial Watch has fought and won numerous victories in court in an attempt to gain access to the Energy Task Force records. At nearly every turn, government lawyers have flouted court orders while asserting virtual unlimited executive power. "[The Energy Task Force's] fundamental objection is that the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as allegedly interpreted in this and prior cases, is unconstitutional," Judicial Watch argued. "As the Court of Appeals noted, constitutional issues involving the separation of powers may - at some point - arise in this case. That point, however, has not arrived." Of the many constitutional issues related to this case, only two were before the U.S. Court of Appeals and, therefore, warrant proper consideration by the Supreme Court - whether or not moving forward with discovery would cause specific harm to the Energy Task Force, and whether or not the Vice President is immune from discovery. Both issues were clearly and properly decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals. First, the constitutional "harms" offered by Energy Task Force lawyers are entirely speculative, and not specific, relating to potential conflicts in the separation of powers. And second, based on the law and established precedent, the Vice President cannot assert executive privilege prior to discovery. As was established in the Clinton v. Jones case, even the President is not immune from civil discovery. "Legally speaking, the Vice President's lawyers have nowhere left to hide," said JW President Tom Fitton. "We expect to win once again in the Supreme Court."
info@judicialwatch.org • 1-888-JW-ETHIC
Site hosting and technology by Cory Consulting, Inc. © 1997-2004, Judicial Watch, Inc., All rights reserved. |
