Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management

391 U.S. App. D.C. 362 (D.C. Cir. 2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · July 6, 2010 · No. No. 08-5379

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the OPEN Government Act of 2007 could not be applied retroactively to support an award of attorneys' fees in a Freedom of Information Act action. The agency disclosed the requested records before the Act's enactment, and the parties' later formal settlement did not alter the timing of the relevant fee-triggering event. The court reversed the district court's decision and vacated the fee award.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the Court
Circuit Judge Griffith; Judge Henderson; Judge Tatel; Judge Griffith
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
July 6, 2010
Docket number
No. 08-5379
Procedural posture
The Bureau of Land Management appealed a district court award of attorneys' fees to Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act.
Standard of review
De novo review applied because the temporal scope of a statute is a question of law.
Precedential value
precedential
Parties
Bureau of Land Management v. Judicial Watch, Inc.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

statutory interpretationadministrative lawappellate jurisdictionstandard of reviewremedies

Practice areas

administrative lawFreedom of Information Actstatutory interpretationattorneys' feesappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the OPEN Government Act of 2007 could be applied to authorize attorneys' fees when the agency voluntarily disclosed the requested records before the statute's enactment but the parties formally settled afterward.
  2. Whether the timing of the parties' post-enactment stipulation made application of the 2007 Act nonretroactive.

Holdings

  1. Applying the 2007 Act to authorize attorneys' fees would have impermissible retroactive effects because it would attach a new legal consequence to the Bureau's pre-enactment disclosure of the requested records.
  2. The timing of the parties' subsequent settlement was irrelevant to the Bureau's potential liability for attorneys' fees and did not avoid the retroactive effect of applying the 2007 Act.

Key quotations

Applying the 2007 Act to this case would attach a new legal consequence (liability for attorneys' fees) to an event completed before its enactment (the Bureau's disclosure in September 2007). (610 F.3d at 750)
The disclosure was last in the chain of events relevant to Judicial Watch's eligibility for attorneys' fees under the new law, and it took place months before the law's enactment. (610 F.3d at 750)

Factual background

In March 2007, Judicial Watch requested records from the Bureau concerning communications about a federal-land transaction. After the Bureau failed to produce the records, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA action in September 2007, and the Bureau later voluntarily disclosed thirty-five responsive pages and conducted an unsuccessful supplemental search. The President signed the OPEN Government Act of 2007 on December 31, 2007, after the disclosure but before the parties formally stipulated to judgment. The district court applied the new statute and awarded attorneys' fees.

Procedural history

Judicial Watch sued after the Bureau failed to produce requested records. The Bureau later disclosed responsive records, and the parties stipulated to entry of judgment in favor of the Bureau while Judicial Watch reserved its right to seek attorneys' fees. The district court awarded Judicial Watch $3,605.57 under the OPEN Government Act of 2007. The D.C. Circuit reversed and vacated the fee award.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…