Main Street Legal Services., Inc. v. National Security Council
811 F.3d 542
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Main Street Legal Services filed a FOIA request seeking NSC meeting minutes (2011) and records related to targeted drone strikes; NSC denied, asserting it is not an "agency" under FOIA.
- The district court dismissed the FOIA suit, concluding the NSC is not an FOIA agency; Main Street appealed.
- The question centers on whether the National Security Council (the Council) or the broader NSC System qualifies as an "agency" under 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1), 552(f)(1).
- The court applied the Soucie framework (units that have "sole function" to advise the President are not agencies unless they wield substantial independent authority) and reviewed statutory text (50 U.S.C. § 3021), presidential directives (PPD-1), executive orders, regulations, and practice.
- The Second Circuit concluded both the Council and the NSC System perform only advisory/assistance functions for the President and exercise no authority independent of him, so they are not FOIA agencies.
- The court also held the FOIA provision granting courts “jurisdiction” to order production describes remedial power, not subject-matter jurisdiction, so dismissal was proper under Rule 12(b)(6); denial of discovery was within the court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the NSC (Council or NSC System) is an "agency" under FOIA | NSC is an "establishment in the Executive Office of the President" and thus an FOIA agency per § 552(f)(1) | NSC and NSC System have only advisory/assistance functions to the President and exercise no independent authority, so they are not agencies | Not an agency: both Council and NSC System advise/assist President and wield no independent authority |
| Proper test for Executive Office units | Text of § 552(f)(1) is dispositive | Soucie test ("sole function" vs. "substantial independent authority") governs; legislative history supports limiting inclusion | Apply Soucie: consider whether unit’s sole function is advising/assisting or whether it has independent authority; NSC fails to show independent authority |
| Effect of presidential organization (PPD-1), executive orders, and regulations on agency status | Presidential directives and prior NSC regulations/structure vest independent authority in NSC System | Presidential directives expressly state NSC exists to assist the President; delegated/presidential authority is revocable and does not equal statutory independent authority | PPD-1 and orders show NSC organized to assist President; presidential delegations do not demonstrate independent authority here |
| Whether FOIA's reference to "jurisdiction" makes agency status a subject-matter jurisdictional requirement | Plaintiff implies FOIA remedies depend on agency status | Defendant argued FOIA jurisdictional language means court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction absent an agency | "Jurisdiction" in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) concerns remedial power not subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal on merits under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (test distinguishing advisory White House units from agencies that exercise independent authority)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1980) (considered legislative history and Soucie in FOIA context for Executive Office units)
- Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 90 F.3d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (applied Soucie to NSC and held it was not an FOIA agency)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (distinguishing remedial-statutory "jurisdiction" from subject-matter jurisdiction)
- United States Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1989) (describing FOIA’s jurisdictional language as referring to remedial powers)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards; inadequate factual allegations do not entitle plaintiff to discovery)