No. 19-517

Daniel Barbosa, et al. v. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2019-10-22
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-procedure-act agency-transparency civil-procedure discretionary-function discretionary-function-exception express-statement-requirement foia foia-publication-requirements freedom-of-information-act judicial-review mandatory-publication secret-law stafford-act statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Environmental SocialSecurity Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-01-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Stafford Act bars review of claims that FEMA uses secret law in violation of FOIA's mandatory requirements

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1), “require[s]” agencies to publish certain rules, a mandate that affords no discretion in furthering Congress’s goal to prevent the use of “secret (agency) law.” NZIRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 153 (1975). Congress protected FOIA and the rest of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) from inadvertent amendment by directing that subsequent statutes “may not be held to supersede or modify” the APA unless they do so “expressly.” 5 U.S.C. § 559. This petition concerns one such subsequent statute, the Stafford Act, which contains no express reference to the APA, and instead bars judicial review only of claims concerning “a discretionary function or duty” authorized by the Stafford Act itself. 42 U.S.C. § 5148. Even though section 5148 lacks the express statement required by section 559, and without holding that FOIA affords agencies any discretion to avoid publication, the D.C. Circuit held that the Stafford Act bars review of whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) has published the materials required by FOIA. The question presented is whether section 5148 bars review of claims that FEMA uses secret law in violation of FOIA’s mandatory requirements.

Docket Entries

2020-01-27
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.
2020-01-07
Reply of petitioners Daniel Barbosa, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2019-12-23
Brief of respondents United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. in opposition filed.
2019-11-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 23, 2019.
2019-11-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 21, 2019 to December 23, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-10-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 21, 2019)
2019-08-19
Application (19A186) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until October 18, 2019.
2019-08-16
Application (19A186) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 19, 2019 to October 18, 2019, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Daniel Barbosa, et al.
Amanda Flug DavidoffSullivan & Cromwell LLP, Petitioner
Amanda Flug DavidoffSullivan & Cromwell LLP, Petitioner
United States Department of Homeland Security, et al.
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent