Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Sheffner, Daniel J." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Congress's Authority to Influence and Control Executive Branch Agencies [Updated December 19, 2018]
"The most potent tools of congressional control over agencies, including those addressing the structuring, empowering, regulating, and funding of agencies, typically require enactment of legislation. Such legislation must comport with constitutional requirements related to bicameralism (i.e., it must be approved by both houses of Congress) and presentment (i.e., it must be presented to the President for signature). The constitutional process to enact effective legislation requires the support of the House, Senate, and the President, unless the support in both houses is sufficient to override the President's veto. There also are many non-statutory tools (i.e., tools not requiring legislative enactment to exercise) that may be used by the House, Senate, congressional committees, or individual Members of Congress to influence and control agency action. In some cases, non-statutory measures, such as impeachment and removal, Senate advice and consent to appointments or the ratification of treaties, and committee issuance of subpoenas, can impose legal consequences. Others, however, such as House resolutions of inquiry, may not be used to bind agencies or agency officials and rely for their effectiveness on their ability to persuade or influence."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garvey, Todd; Sheffner, Daniel J.
2018-12-19
-
When Does the Government Have to Disclose Private Business Information in Its Possession? [April 24, 2019]
From the Document: "On Monday, April 22, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 'Food Marketing Institute (FMI) v. Argus Leader Media', in which the Court is considering the scope of Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). That exemption authorizes agencies to withhold from disclosure under FOIA 'confidential' commercial or financial information that a non-governmental entity has supplied an agency. While Exemption 4 has generated significant case law in the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court has never--until now--considered the issue. Third parties regularly submit sensitive proprietary information to the federal government in a diverse array of contexts, including such varied situations as applications for government loans; applications for drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration; military and other government contracts; and settlement negotiations with agencies. As a result, the Court's decision in 'FMI' implicates a public policy debate about the scope of Exemption 4. On one hand, a narrow view of the exemption could affect private parties' willingness to share information submitted to the government under these and other contexts. At the same time, financial and commercial information may often be associated with federal programs and activities that implicate public health and safety, the allocation of federal funds, and other matters of public interest that may warrant public scrutiny. Accordingly, a decision that broadens agencies' discretion to withhold under Exemption 4 may effect a corresponding limitation on the public's access to such important data. In anticipation of the Court's decision in 'FMI', this Sidebar provides a general overview of Exemption 4 and 'FMI'."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sheffner, Daniel J.
2019-04-24
-
Has Judicial Deference to Agency Regulatory Interpretations Reached Its Final 'Auer?' [March 25, 2019]
From the Document: "On Wednesday, March 27, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in 'Kisor v. Wilkie', in which the Court is asked to overturn one of the most significant and contentious doctrines in administrative law. That doctrine, first espoused by the Court nearly seventy-five years ago in 'Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.', and later reaffirmed in 'Auer v. Robbins', generally instructs courts to defer to agencies' reasonable constructions of ambiguous regulatory language. The Court's decision to uphold, narrow, or end application of the 'Auer' doctrine not only may have direct ramifications for agencies' approach to decision making, but also may signal whether the Court will reconsider an even more consequential administrative law doctrine--the 'Chevron doctrine'--in the near future. This Sidebar provides a general overview of the 'Auer' doctrine and the Supreme Court's consideration of 'Kisor', including the potential consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in that case."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sheffner, Daniel J.
2019-03-25
-
Supreme Court October Term 2018: A Review of Selected Major Rulings [August 23, 2019]
From the Document: "The Supreme Court term that began on October 1, 2018, was a term of transition, with the Court issuing a number of rulings that, at times, suggested but did not fully adopt broader transformations in its jurisprudence. The term followed the retirement of Justice Kennedy, who was a critical vote on the Court for much of his 30-year tenure and who had been widely viewed as the Court's median or 'swing' Justice. As a result, the question looming over the October 2018 Term was how the replacement of Justice Kennedy with Justice Kavanaugh would alter the Court's jurisprudence going forward. Notwithstanding the alteration in the Court's makeup, observers have generally agreed that the October 2018 Term largely did not produce broad changes to the Court's jurisprudence. Although a number of cases presented the Court with the opportunity to rethink various areas of law, the Court largely declined those invitations. In other cases, a majority of the Justices did not resolve potentially far-reaching questions, resulting in the Court either issuing more narrow rulings or simply not issuing an opinion in a given case. Nonetheless, much of the low-key nature of the October 2018 Term was a product of the Court's decisions to not hear certain matters. And for a number of closely watched cases that it did agree to hear, the Court opted to schedule arguments for the next term."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Nolan, Andrew; Brannon, Valerie C.; Hayes, Benjamin . . .
2019-08-23
-
When Does the Government Have to Disclose Private Business Information in its Possession? [Updated June 25, 2019]
From the Document: "On Monday, April 22, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 'Food Marketing Institute (FMI) v. Argus Leader Media', in which the Court is considering the scope of Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). That exemption authorizes agencies to with hold from disclosure under FOIA 'confidential' commercial or financial information that a non-governmental entity has supplied an agency. While Exemption 4 has generated significant case law in the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court has never--until now--considered the issue. Third parties regularly submit sensitive proprietary information to the federal government in a diverse array of contexts, including such varied situations as applications for government loans; applications for drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration; military and other government contracts; and settlement negotiations with agencies. As a result, the Court's decision in FMI implicates a public policy debate about the scope of Exemption 4. On one hand, a narrow view of the exemption could affect private parties' willingness to share information submitted to the government under these and other contexts. At the same time, financial and commercial information may often be associated with federal programs and activities that implicate public health and safety, the allocation of federal funds, and other matters of public interest that may warrant public scrutiny. Accordingly, a decision that broadens agencies' discretion to withhold under Exemption 4 may effect a corresponding limitation on the public's access to such important data. In anticipation of the Court's decision in FMI, this Sidebar provides a general overview of Exemption 4 and 'FMI'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sheffner, Daniel J.
2019-06-25
-
Freedom of Information Act: An Introduction [March 9, 2020]
From the Document: "The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552, provides the public a right to access federal agency information. Subject to statutorily enumerated exemptions and exclusions, agencies must disclose records covered by the act in one of three ways. First, FOIA directs agencies to publish certain important government materials in the Federal Register. Second, on a proactive basis, agencies must electronically disclose certain agency information. And third, FOIA requires agencies to disclose all covered records that are not available through the aforementioned affirmative disclosure provisions to individuals, corporations, and other entities on request. This In Focus provides a brief introduction to FOIA."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sheffner, Daniel J.
2020-03-09
-
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): A Legal Overview [February 24, 2020]
From the Summary: "Originally enacted in 1966, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes a three-part system that requires federal agencies to disclose a large swath of government information to the public. First, FOIA directs agencies to publish substantive and procedural rules, along with certain other important government materials, in the Federal Register. Second, on a proactive basis, agencies must electronically disclose a separate set of information that consists of, among other things, final adjudicative opinions and certain 'frequently requested' records. And lastly, FOIA requires agencies to disclose all covered records not made available pursuant to the aforementioned affirmative disclosure provisions to individuals, corporations, and others upon request."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Sheffner, Daniel J.
2020-02-24
1
