Cluster 452960

See Rushforth, 762 F.2d at 1041 ("critically, it was the functional role of the agency on which Soucie turned"); id. at 1043 n. 7 (Senate confirmation of CEA members not given great weight, as "the nature of the appointment" did not "speak[ ] to the function of the CEA").

Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1043 (D.C.

Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1040, 1043 (D.C.

Archive, 909 F.2d at 545 ; Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1040-41 (D.C.Cir.1985).

Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1042 (D.C.Cir.1985).

Circuit eases since Soucie have described that case, OST “was subject to FOIA because it had independent authority to evaluate federal scientific programs, initiate and support research, and award scholarships.” Sweetland, 60 F.3d at 854 (citing Soucie, 448 F.2d at 1075 ; Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1041 (D.C.Cir.1985)).

See, e.g., Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 157 , 100 S.Ct. 960 , 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980) (“the President’s immediate staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole function is to advise and assist the President are not included within the term ‘agency’ under the FOIA”); Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisors, 762 F.2d 1038, 1043 (D.C.Cir.1985) (CEA not an “agency” under FOIA); Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d at 1289 (Task Force on Regulatory …

NEPDG would be considered an agency for FOIA purposes if “it could act directly and independently beyond advising and assisting the President.” Id.; see also Pacific Legal Foundation v. Council on Environmental Quality, 636 F.2d 1259, 1263 (D.C.Cir.1980) (Council on Environmental Quality is FOIA agency because it has the power to coordinate federal programs and to issue guidelines to federal agencies and the authority to promulgate regulations); cf. Rushforth v. Council of E…

Similarly, in Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1040 (D.C.Cir.1985), this Circuit addressed whether the Council of Economic Advisers was an “agency” subject to the disclosure requirements of the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b.

Similarly, in Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1040 (D.C.Cir.1985), this Circuit addressed whether the Council of Economic Advisers was an “agency” subject to the disclosure requirements of the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b.

Cir. 1993) (President’s Task Force on Regulatory Relief not an “ agency” under the FOIA); Rushforth v. Council o f Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1040-41 (D.C.

It is quite true that, apart from its roots in the language of § 551(1) and its legislative history, our “substantial independent authority” test both originated in a case involving an entity in the Executive Office of the President, Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067 (D.C.Cir.1971) (Office of Science and Technology), and has most often been applied in the case of such entities, see Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 90 F.3d 553 (D.C.Cir.1996) (National Security Cou…

Cir. 1996) (National Security Council); Meyer, 981 F.2d at 1291-98 (Task Force on Regulatory Reform); Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1040-43 (D.C.

Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1043 (D.C.Cir.1985).

Rushforth v. CEA 762 F.2d 1038, 1043 (D.C.Cir.1985).

Rushforth v. Council on Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1043 (D.C.Cir.1985).

See id. at 1075 ; Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1041 (D.C.Cir.1985).

Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1043 (D.C.Cir. 1985) (holding that the Council of Economic Advisers’ sole function was that of "advising and assisting the President,” and consequently the Council was not an agency for purposes of FOIA). 11 .

Id. at 1040, 1041-43 .

Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1042-43 (D.C.Cir.1985).

Even if the President is properly deemed an “agency” within the meaning of the APA, a doubtful proposition, see Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156 , 100 S.Ct. 960, 971 , 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980); Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1040 (D.C.Cir.1985); 1 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 1.2 at 8 (2d ed.1978), judicial review is nonetheless barred since in all respects the determinations required are “committed …

Congress in all likelihood recognized this difficulty, since it stated in the legislative history of amended section 552(e) that “Executive Office of the President” excludes “ ‘the President’s immediate personal staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole function is to advise and assist the President,’ ” Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisors, 762 F.2d 1038, 1040 (D.C.Cir. 1985), quoting H.R.Rep.

See Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisors, 762 F.2d 1038 , 1042–43 (D.C.

See Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisors , 762 F.2d 1038 , 1042-43 (D.C.

See Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038 (D.C.Cir.1985); see also Brandon v. Eckard, 569 F.2d 683, 687-88 (D.C.Cir.1977) (“FOIA does not discriminate among persons seeking access to materials on grounds of their particular interests in the requested information____" (footnote omitted).

See Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1043-1044 (D.C.Cir.1985); Symons v. Chrysler Corp. Loan Guarantee Bd., 670 F.2d 238, 249 (D.C.Cir.1981).

See, e.g., 8 Rushforth, 762 F.2d 1038, 1043 (D.C.

See, e.g., Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1043-44 (D.C.Cir.1985) (holding Sunshine Act inapplicable absent statutory requirement that agency be run collegially); Symons v. Chrysler Corp. Loan Guar.

See, e.g., Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisors, 762 F.2d 1038 , 1039 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1985) (“Standing does, of course, lie as a general matter where a request is submitted under [the] FOIA for existing documents...."); Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 730 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.1981) ("Under the Freedom of Information Act, the identity of the requester is immaterial...."); Skolnick v. *841 Parsons, 397 F.2d 523, 525 (7th Cir.1968) ("Under this statute, the plaintif…