Cause of Action v. National Archives & Records Administration
410 U.S. App. D.C. 97
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (a temporary legislative-branch commission) completed its work in 2011 and transferred its records to the National Archives (NARA) shortly before it terminated.
- FOIA covers executive-branch "agencies" but excludes Congress and other legislative entities; the Commission itself was not a FOIA "agency."
- NARA is an executive-branch agency subject to FOIA and routinely accepts records from all three branches for preservation and public access when appropriate.
- Cause of Action filed a FOIA request with NARA for Commission records; NARA denied disclosure on the ground that records originating in the legislative branch remained FOIA-exempt even after transfer.
- The district court applied the four-factor "Burka" control test and held the transferred records were not "agency records" subject to FOIA; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether records originating in a legislative-branch commission become FOIA "agency records" when deposited at NARA | Records held by NARA are "under [the Archives'] control" and thus subject to FOIA | Transfer to NARA does not change records' FOIA status; legislative-origin materials remain exempt | Transferring records to NARA does not convert legislative-branch records into FOIA "agency records"; affirmed |
| Whether the four-factor (Burka) control test should determine NARA's FOIA obligations for transferred legislative records | Burka test should apply to show NARA controls and uses the records like any agency | Burka factors are ill-suited to NARA because its custodial, preservation functions do not reveal agency decisionmaking | Burka test is inappropriate for NARA; its typical cataloging/preservation control is not the type of control FOIA contemplates |
| Whether the transferor's intent and any access restrictions control post-transfer disclosure | Transferor's intent to restrict access (and requested 5-year hold) should be disregarded if NARA now controls records | Transferor's intent and restrictions are relevant; special policy considerations weigh against compelling disclosure simply because NARA possesses the records | The Court emphasizes statutory interpretation and congressional intent: legislative materials are not exposed to FOIA merely by deposit with NARA; transferor restrictions and legislative-origin carry weight |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (documents are "agency records" only if in an agency's control in the conduct of its duties)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (distinguishing personal materials from agency records)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 646 F.3d 924 (identifying four-factor Burka test for control)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv., 726 F.3d 208 (questioning Burka test utility for records originating outside FOIA-covered entities)
- Katz v. National Archives & Records Administration, 68 F.3d 1438 (deposition at NARA does not automatically create FOIA agency records)
- Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 87 F.3d 508 (source of the four-factor control framework)
- Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (FOIA's purpose: exposing agency operations to public scrutiny)