No. 24-300

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Shane Jeffries, in His Official Capacity as Ochoco National Forest Supervisor, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-09-17
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-procedure-act administrative-record agency-action deliberative-materials judicial-review record-review
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration
Latest Conference: 2025-01-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Administrative Procedure Act permits an agency to categorically and unilaterally exclude deliberative materials from the administrative record

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Administrative Procedure Act provides that courts “shall review the whole record” in adjudicating agency action. 5 U.S.C. § 706. Lower courts are divided over whether an agency’s allegedly deliberative materials—memoranda and other iterative documents that an agency creates and considers in undertaking agency action—are a part of the “whole record” on judicial review. Most courts have concluded that the “whole record” means what it says: deliberative materials are a part of the administrative record, and the agency must produce a privilege log if it seeks to withhold deliberative documents. In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit joined the D.C. Circuit in holding that materials an agency deems “deliberative” are categorically excluded from the administrative record. The Court of Appeals further held that because, in its view, deliberative materials are not part of the administrative record, the agency need not produce a privilege log identifying the withheld materials absent a showing the agency acted in bad faith or engaged in other misconduct in classifying the documents as deliberative. The question presented is: Whether the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires an agency to produce its “whole record” for judicial review, permits an agency to categorically and unilaterally exclude from the administrative record materials that the agency deems deliberative.

Docket Entries

2025-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2024-12-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
2024-12-23
Reply of Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project submitted.
2024-12-23
Reply of petitioner Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project filed. (Distributed)
2024-12-06
Brief of Federal Respondents in opposition filed.
2024-11-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 6, 2024.
2024-11-08
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2024-11-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 18, 2024 to December 6, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-09-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 18, 2024.
2024-09-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 17, 2024 to November 18, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-09-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 17, 2024)
2024-07-10
Application (24A13) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until September 13, 2024.
2024-07-05
Application (24A13) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 15, 2024 to September 13, 2024, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project
Matthew S. HellmanJenner & Block LLP, Petitioner
Matthew S. HellmanJenner & Block LLP, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent