The good folks at POGO note that the Dept. of Justice isn’t following its own policy strongly suggesting that all agencies provide a link to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request policy on all agency homepages.
Blogged in part because I like all-acronym titles.
Public Knowledge writes:
Public Knowledge is pleased to announce that The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit this morning threw out the Federal Communications Commission's order establishing the so-called “broadcast flag.” In a unanimous opinion, the court agreed with our argument that the FCC exceeded its authority in creating this broadcast flag scheme. Judge Harry T. Edwards, writing for the court, said: “In the seven decades of its existence, the FCC has never before asserted such sweeping authority. Indeed, in the past, the FCC has informed Congress that it lacked any such authority. In our view, nothing has changed to give the FCC the authority it now claims.” This was a case that Public Knowledge organized and financed. We're still looking for help to pay for the case, so please take the opportunity, if you haven't, contribute to PK or become a member. It's easy. See here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/membership-drive-200504.
We couldn't have done it without the help of our co-plaintiffs, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, American Association of Law Libraries, Medical Library Association and the Special Libraries Association.
I am not making this up. From the Federal Register:
The BLS plans to have email data collection in place in all States in 2004 or in early 2005. At this time, six volunteer States are testing the procedures and software of email data collection. OES is enhancing the State Survey Processing and Management (SPAM) computer system to improve the quality and timeliness of the data. OES will convert to the June 6, 2003, definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas by 2005.
NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of Labor Statistics Proposed Collection, Comment Request Friday, February 13, 2004 69 FR 7264-01, 2004 WL 256289 (F.R.) .
Want to bet someone won a round of drinks as to whether s/he could sneak that one by the boss?
Administrative lawyers and policy wonks will be pleased to know that OMB Watch, a very fine bunch, have launched RegWatch, a regulatory policy blog devoted to “quick alerts to the latest news and views about protections of the public interest.” (Thanks Barbara!)
Back in 1912, Congress passed a statute prohibiting the “gag rule” under which Presidents stopped underlings from testifying to Congress. And in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Congress restated that no federal money can be used to pay the salary of any federal employee who “prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the federal government” from communicating with Congress.
Well, the in light of this law the GAO's Investigators Say Ex-Medicare Chief Should Repay Salary. It seem that the Bush administration illegally withheld data from Congress on the cost of the new Medicare law. Had the data been available, the bill would not have passed.
To keep the info from Congress, Thomas A. Scully illegally threatened to fire the chief Medicare actuary. As a result, he should not have received salary from that point on and must refunde seven months pay.
This is the sort of facts that scream “DC Circuit”… so the inevitable lawsuit will take at least nine months to sort out and probably much more. But Congress's power of the purse is its core and most plenary power. So I think Mr. Scully better be looking to the Scaife people for some help.
[Thanks to bobcox for the correction]
One of my absolute favorite things about being a law professor is helping students who are writing articles for publication. I don’t mean student notes — working with students writing notes can be fun, but isn’t always, both because the form is very Procrustean and because some of the people who write notes here are just doing it to make Law Review, and don’t intend to make the extra effort needed to have their work published. I mean the students who write a full-scale article. Doing a publishable article is scads more work than doing a regular paper, and usually involves several additional drafts. Most students just don’t have the time or interest. But I get a few who do, maybe one or two a year, and working with them is a particular joy.
Thus, I’m especially pleased to announce that Christine M. Humphrey, a December 2003 graduate of UM Law, has just published her article The Food and Drug Administration’s Import Alerts Appear to be “Misbranded”, 58 Food & Drug L.J. 595 (2003). The FDLI does not put full-text online, but you can expect an online abstracts for 58:4 Real Soon Now, and Ms. Humphrey informs me that her firm will be hosting the text soon (I’ll update this item when it does). Meanwhile, if you have access to Westlaw, you can view the full Westlaw version. Ms. Humphrey did the work on the article while a student here — and a lot of work it was, too as I think she did more than half a dozen drafts for me, at least two after she’d already received her final grade. (The Buckley Amendment does not Allow me to Announce her grAde.)
Although the subject is a little specialized, the article is important. It argues, I think very persuasively, that the FDA is illegally circumventing the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to issue “Import Alerts” — decisions that effectively bar the importation of whole classes of products but that the agency says are merely “guidance” documents. The article juggles the intricacies of the FDA regulations and the complex underlying APA rules and shows how they are in tension. The issue is sure to be litigated soon unless the FDA cleans up its act.
Jotwell Blenderlaw