Barrett Pens First Opinion; Draws Dissent in Break with Tradition

March 5, 2021 by Dan McCue
Barrett Pens First Opinion; Draws Dissent in Break with Tradition

WASHINGTON – Justice Amy Coney Barrett released the first majority opinion of her Supreme Court career Thursday, ruling against an environmental group that had sought access to government records.

The decision prompted a dissent from two liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, which was something of a break from tradition.

Most new justices are assigned a case in which court is unanimous for their first opinion.

The case is U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club. In ruling against the environmental group, Barrett said the records being sought were protected by an exemption to the act that shields documents that would disclose deliberations inside an agency before it makes a final decision.

The exemption applied, she wrote, even to documents reflecting agencies’ last words on a given subject.

“A document is not final solely because nothing else follows it. Sometimes a proposal dies on the vine,” she wrote.

“That happens in deliberations — some ideas are discarded or simply languish,” she continued.

 “Yet documents discussing such dead-end ideas can hardly be described as reflecting the agency’s chosen course. What matters, then, is not whether a document is last in line, but whether it communicates a policy on which the agency has settled.”

The dispute extends back to 2011, when the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new regulation to govern cooling water intake structures at power plants, which can harm fish and other aquatic life.

Under the Endangered Species Act, the agency was required to consult with two other units of the federal government, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, to gauge and address harm the regulation would do.

The services prepared draft documents saying that the proposed regulation would not do enough to protect endangered species and in the end, the E.P.A. ‘s final regulation was more stringent than the one it had initially proposed.

The Sierra Club sued to obtain the documents under the freedom of information law, and it won in the Ninth Circuit, where a  divided three-judge panel ruled that the draft opinions represented the services’ final conclusions and so had to be disclosed.

Reversing that ruling, Barrett wrote that it was not enough that the drafts “proved to be the agencies’ last word about a proposal’s potential threat to endangered species.”

Officials at federal agencies must be free to deliberate out of public view, she wrote. Quoting an earlier decision, she said agencies must not be “forced to operate in a fishbowl.”

In a dissent penned by Breyer and joined by Sotomayor, the judges on the losing side of the argument said given “the likely finality of a Draft Biological Opinion, its similarity to a Final Biological Opinion, the similar purposes it serves, the agency’s actual practice, the anomaly that would otherwise exist depending upon the presence or absence of a private party, and the presence of at least some regulation-based legal constraints—convince me that a Draft Biological Opinion would not normally enjoy a deliberative privilege from FOIA disclosure.”

Breyer continued: “The question remains whether the particular documents at issue here are Draft Biological Opinions or Drafts of Draft Biological Opinions. As the majority points out, there are reasons to believe some of them may be the latter. See ante, at 7, n. 4, 9.

“The National Marine Fisheries Service’s documents contain highlighting and editing marks reflective of a work-in-progress. But the Fish and Wildlife Service documents do not, and the record indicates they may have been complete but for a final signature.

“Given the fact-intensive nature of this question, I would remand to allow the Court of Appeals to determine just how much work was left to be done. If the court determines that the documents are merely Drafts of Draft Biological Opinions, I agree with the majority that a segregability analysis would be appropriate,” Breyer wrote.

It is something of a tradition for new justices to be assigned a case in which the court is unanimous for their first opinion, but it doesn’t always happen. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote unanimous first opinions. Sotomayor also got a unanimous opinion for her first assignment, but Justice Elena Kagan, was assigned a first opinion where the court divided 8-1

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, the justices are not currently announcing their decisions in the courtroom but only posting them online.

Barrett’s opinion Thursday was not the first writing the public has seen from her as a justice.

Last month, she wrote a paragraph-long concurring opinion in a case in which the justices told the state of California that it can’t bar indoor church services because of the coronavirus pandemic, but could maintain a ban on singing and chanting indoors.

A+
a-
  • Amy Coney Barrett
  • FOIA
  • Sierra Club
  • Supreme Court
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • In The News

    Health

    Voting

    Supreme Court

    June 21, 2024
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Upholds US Authority to Tax Citizens’ Foreign Investments

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a Trump-era tax on foreign income in a ruling critics say extends... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a Trump-era tax on foreign income in a ruling critics say extends federal authority too far over international business. Before Congress enacted the tax in 2017, wealthy individuals and corporations would put their investment income into foreign stock... Read More

    June 21, 2024
    by Dan McCue
    Justices Uphold Ban on Domestic Abusers Having Guns

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violence restraining order, reversing a lower court ruling. In an 8-1 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts,... Read More

    June 14, 2024
    by Dan McCue
    Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on ‘Bump Stock’ Firearm Attachments

    WASHINGTON — Dealing a blow to gun safety advocates, a sharply divided Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era... Read More

    WASHINGTON — Dealing a blow to gun safety advocates, a sharply divided Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era ban on “bump stocks,” an accessory used to turn a semiautomatic weapon into something comparable to a rapid-fire machine gun. In a 6-3 ruling, a majority... Read More

    June 13, 2024
    by Tom Ramstack
    Democrats Criticize Chief Justice for Supreme Court Ethics Enforcement

    WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats criticized the Supreme Court's chief justice Thursday for failing to enforce ethics standards on the court... Read More

    WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats criticized the Supreme Court's chief justice Thursday for failing to enforce ethics standards on the court as they consider a proposal to intervene. Lawmakers were discussing a Senate Judiciary Committee bill to impose a new code of ethics on the Supreme Court.... Read More

    US Supreme Court Rules to Preserve Access to Abortion Pill Mifepristone

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously to preserve access to the abortion pill mifepristone, a pill used in the... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously to preserve access to the abortion pill mifepristone, a pill used in the most common way to end a pregnancy. The medication was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States last year. The ruling is the court's... Read More

    Supreme Court Has Lots of Work to Do and Little Time to Do It With a Sizable Case Backlog

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is headed into its final few weeks with nearly half of the cases heard this year... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is headed into its final few weeks with nearly half of the cases heard this year still undecided, including ones that could reshape the law on everything from guns to abortion to social media. The justices are also still weighing whether former... Read More

    News From The Well
    scroll top