--- aliases: - D.C. Circuit - D.C. Cir. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit - U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit category: Law Enforcement & Legal created: 2026-10-15 location: Washington, D.C. relations: - fn: 24 reverse: true role: independent counsel for Iran/contra matters, appointed by the Special Division of the court start: 1986-12-19 type: appointed with: '[[Lawrence Walsh]]' - end: 1999-11-16 fn: 15 reverse: true role: judge start: 1979-07-26 type: member_of with: '[[Patricia Wald]]' - end: 1989-05-26 fn: 17 reverse: true role: judge start: 1983-09-20 type: member_of with: '[[Kenneth Starr]]' - end: 1988-02-05 fn: 3 reverse: true role: judge start: 1982-02-08 type: member_of with: '[[Robert Bork]]' - end: 1986-09-26 fn: 4 reverse: true role: judge start: 1982-08-17 type: member_of with: '[[Antonin Scalia]]' - end: 1993-08-10 fn: 5 reverse: true role: judge start: 1980-06-18 type: member_of with: '[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]' - end: 1991-10-23 fn: 6 reverse: true role: judge start: 1990-03-06 type: member_of with: '[[Clarence Thomas]]' - end: 2005-09-29 fn: 7 reverse: true role: judge start: 2003-06-02 type: member_of with: '[[John Roberts]]' - end: 2018-10-05 fn: 8 reverse: true role: judge start: 2006-05-30 type: member_of with: '[[Brett Kavanaugh]]' - end: 2021-03-10 fn: 9 reverse: true role: judge start: 1997-03-20 type: member_of with: '[[Merrick Garland]]' - end: 2000-11-01 fn: 10 reverse: true role: judge, senior status from 2000 start: 1985-10-28 type: member_of with: '[[Laurence Silberman]]' - end: 2013-02-12 fn: 11 reverse: true role: judge, chief judge 2008 to 2013 start: 1987-09-11 type: member_of with: '[[David Sentelle]]' - end: 2005-11-03 fn: 12 reverse: true role: judge start: 1980-02-20 type: member_of with: '[[Harry Edwards]]' - end: 1984-12-06 fn: 13 reverse: true role: judge start: 1970-02-25 type: member_of with: '[[Malcolm Wilkey]]' - end: 1979-06-30 fn: 14 reverse: true role: judge start: 1949-10-21 type: member_of with: '[[David Bazelon]]' - end: 1994-09-19 fn: 18 reverse: true role: judge, chief judge 1991 to 1994 start: 1979-09-26 type: member_of with: '[[Abner Mikva]]' - fn: 19 reverse: true role: judge, chief judge 2001 to 2008 start: 1986-10-14 type: member_of with: '[[Douglas Ginsburg]]' - fn: 27 reverse: true role: convictions vacated and remanded, count 9 reversed start: 1990-07-20 type: subject_of with: '[[Oliver North]]' - fn: 29 reverse: true role: convictions reversed on all counts start: 1991-11-15 type: subject_of with: '[[John Poindexter]]' - fn: 30 reverse: true role: conviction reversed for failure to sever start: 1980-09-15 type: subject_of with: '[[Ignacio Novo]]' - fn: 33 reverse: true role: FBI case agent in the Letelier and Moffitt investigation, the Chilbom case type: subject_of with: '[[Carter Cornick]]' - fn: 34 reverse: true role: defendant in Zweibon v. Mitchell, approvals of wiretaps on JDL headquarters start: 1975-06-23 type: subject_of with: '[[John N. Mitchell]]' - fn: 35 reverse: true role: procedures for the Halperin surveillance, reviewed in Halperin v. Kissinger start: 1979-07-12 type: subject_of with: '[[Alexander M. Haig, Jr.]]' - fn: 43 reverse: true role: conviction affirmed start: 1981-10-02 type: subject_of with: '[[Mary Sue Hubbard]]' - fn: 59 reverse: true role: pendent jurisdiction ruling, judgment vacated start: 1982-05-18 type: subject_of with: '[[Eugene Metzger]]' - fn: 64 reverse: true role: Rule 11 sanctions affirmed start: 1994-12-09 type: subject_of with: '[[Uri Geller]]' - fn: 65 reverse: true role: health care task force held not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act start: 1993-06-22 type: subject_of with: '[[Hillary Clinton]]' - fn: 66 reverse: true role: mandamus petition; judgment vacated by the Supreme Court in 2004 start: 2003-07-08 type: subject_of with: '[[Dick Cheney]]' - fn: 68 reverse: true role: suit against Kissinger dismissed as a political question start: 2005-06-28 type: subject_of with: '[[Rene Schneider]]' - fn: 71 reverse: true role: libel suit against Esquire and Craig Unger, judgment affirmed start: 1996-01-30 type: subject_of with: '[[Robert McFarlane]]' - fn: 74 reverse: true role: In re Musk, No. 25-5072, mandamus petition over expedited discovery start: 2025-03-18 type: subject_of with: '[[Department of Government Efficiency]]' - fn: 76 reverse: true role: White House access, stay pending appeal start: 2025-06-06 type: subject_of with: '[[Associated Press]]' - fn: 37 reverse: true role: convictions affirmed in the Watergate and Fielding break-in appeals start: 1974-11-08 type: subject_of with: '[[G. Gordon Liddy]]' - fn: 69 reverse: true role: denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea affirmed start: 1992-03-20 type: subject_of with: '[[Jonathan Pollard]]' - fn: 60 reverse: true role: patent appeal for an extrasensory perception device, judgment for the Commissioner affirmed start: 1969-06-25 type: subject_of with: '[[Andrija Puharich]]' - fn: 51 reverse: true role: party in the Armstrong, fee status and Pfeiffer history appeals start: 1989-07-28 type: subject_of with: '[[National Security Archive]]' - fn: 46 reverse: true role: addressee of the March 14, 1986 stay letter in the INSLAW matter start: 1986-03-14 type: subject_of with: '[[Peter Videnieks]]' start: 1893-02-09 summary: The federal appellate court for the District of Columbia, whose rulings on independent counsels, Iran-Contra convictions, Glomar responses, INSLAW, the Letelier case and the 2025 Musk and press-access cases are documented here. tags: - Organization - FederalJudiciary - AppellateCourt - IndependentCounsel - IranContra - Inslaw - LetelierMurder - Glomar - FOIA - Scientology - UriGeller - DOGE - AssociatedPress updated: 2026-10-15 --- The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is the federal appellate court for the District of Columbia. It hears appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and reviews federal agency action, and Congress authorized eleven judgeships for it.[^1][^2] The court traces to a statute of February 9, 1893 that established a court of appeals for the District of Columbia.[^1] Its rulings include the appointment of independent counsels under the Ethics in Government Act, the Iran-Contra prosecutions of [Oliver North](/people/oliver-north/) and [John Poindexter](/people/john-poindexter/), the 1976 car bombing that killed [Orlando Letelier](/people/orlando-letelier/) in Washington, the [INSLAW](/organizations/inslaw/) dispute over the PROMIS software, the Scientology appeal of 1981, the Watergate and Room 16 appeals, the wiretaps of the Nixon years, the espionage case of [Jonathan Pollard](/people/jonathan-pollard/), the Freedom of Information Act cases in which the CIA and the National Security Agency refused to confirm or deny that they held records, and the presidential records suits brought by the [National Security Archive](/organizations/national-security-archive/). The court also decided the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons suit over the 1993 health care task force, the Cheney energy group litigation, and several cases from 2025 and 2026 over White House access, the [Department of Government Efficiency](/organizations/department-of-government-efficiency/), and a tax-data leak prosecution. ### Judges in the record Several judges who sat on the court appear repeatedly in the cases above. Robert Bork was confirmed on February 8, 1982, and his service ended with his resignation on February 5, 1988.[^3] Antonin Scalia was commissioned in August 1982 and left on September 26, 1986, when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.[^4] Ruth Bader Ginsburg was commissioned on June 18, 1980 and left on August 10, 1993 for the Supreme Court.[^5] Clarence Thomas served from March 1990 until October 23, 1991, when he too left for the Supreme Court.[^6] John Roberts was commissioned on June 2, 2003 and left on September 29, 2005, when he was elevated to the Chief Justiceship.[^7] Brett Kavanaugh was commissioned on May 30, 2006 and left on October 5, 2018 for the Supreme Court.[^8] Merrick Garland was commissioned in March 1997 and retired on March 10, 2021.[^9] Laurence Silberman was commissioned on October 28, 1985, took senior status on November 1, 2000, and died on October 2, 2022.[^10] David Sentelle was commissioned on September 11, 1987, served as chief judge from 2008 to 2013, and took senior status on February 12, 2013.[^11] Harry Edwards was commissioned on February 20, 1980 and took senior status on November 3, 2005.[^12] Malcolm Wilkey was commissioned on February 25, 1970, took senior status on December 6, 1984, and retired on November 8, 1985.[^13] David Bazelon received a recess appointment from President [Harry S. Truman](/people/harry-s-truman/) on October 21, 1949, took senior status on June 30, 1979, and died on February 19, 1993.[^14] [Patricia Wald](/people/patricia-wald/) was commissioned on July 26, 1979 and served as chief judge in 1988, when the district court's opinion in the INSLAW bankruptcy litigation records a letter addressed to her in that role.[^15][^16] She retired on November 16, 1999. [Kenneth Starr](/people/kenneth-starr/) was commissioned on September 20, 1983 and resigned on May 26, 1989.[^17] Abner Mikva was commissioned on September 26, 1979 and served as chief judge from 1991 to 1994.[^18] Douglas Ginsburg was commissioned on October 14, 1986, served as chief judge from 2001 to 2008, and took senior status in 2011.[^19] The panels that decided the 2025 and 2026 cases included Neomi Rao (commissioned March 18, 2019), Gregory Katsas (December 8, 2017), Cornelia Pillard (December 17, 2013), Justin Walker (September 2, 2020) and Judith Rogers (commissioned March 11, 1994, senior status September 1, 2022).[^20] J. Skelly Wright was commissioned on March 30, 1962, served as chief judge from 1978 to 1981 and took senior status on June 1, 1986.[^21] Harold Leventhal was commissioned on April 7, 1965, George MacKinnon and Roger Robb on May 6, 1969, and Spottswood Robinson on November 3, 1966; Robinson served as chief judge from 1981 to 1986. Carl McGowan was commissioned on March 27, 1963. Warren Burger was commissioned on March 29, 1956 and left on June 23, 1969 for the Supreme Court. James L. Buckley was commissioned on December 17, 1985, Stephen F. Williams on June 16, 1986, Karen Henderson on July 5, 1990, A. Raymond Randolph on July 16, 1990, and David Tatel on October 7, 1994.[^21] Former clerks include [Paul Cassell](/people/paul-cassell/), who clerked for Scalia from 1984 to 1985, [Paul Engelmayer](/people/paul-engelmayer/), who clerked for Wald from 1987 to 1988, and [William Barr](/people/william-barr/), who clerked for Wilkey. Barr's account of the clerkship appears in a 2001 oral history recorded by the Miller Center.[^22] ### Independent counsel and the Special Division The Ethics in Government Act, codified in 28 U.S.C. chapter 40, provides for a division of the court of three judges, one of whom must be a judge of the District of Columbia Circuit, to appoint independent counsels. The Chief Justice designates the members, and the clerk of the circuit serves as the division's clerk. A judge who participated in a function of the division involving an independent counsel may not take part in a later judicial proceeding concerning a matter that involves that counsel.[^23] The first major use of the division concerns the Iran-Contra affair. On December 4, 1986, [Edwin Meese III](/people/edwin-meese/) asked for an independent counsel, and on December 19, 1986 the division appointed [Lawrence Walsh](/people/lawrence-walsh/).[^24] The final report that Walsh delivered carries the caption "Division No. 86-6." Volume I is dated August 4, 1993 and is addressed in a transmittal letter to the division's chief judge, David Sentelle.[^24] The division's power came under challenge in the same period. In re Sealed Case, decided January 22, 1988 by Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Silberman and Stephen F. Williams, concerned three former Justice Department officials, Theodore B. Olson, Carol E. Dinkins and Edward C. Schmults, who refused to comply with subpoenas from an independent counsel. The inquiry grew out of a 1982 dispute between House subcommittees and the Justice Department over Environmental Protection Agency documents. The panel held the Act unconstitutional and reversed the district court's contempt orders against the three officials.[^25] Walsh's report describes the ruling as a January 1988 panel decision that struck down the law in a case brought against Independent Counsel Alexia Morrison.[^24] The Supreme Court reversed on June 29, 1988 and upheld the independent counsel provisions.[^26] ### Iran-Contra appeals Oliver North was tried before Gerhard Gesell, who sentenced him on July 5, 1989 after a conviction on three counts. A panel of Chief Judge Patricia Wald, Judge Silberman and Judge Sentelle decided his appeal in United States v. North on July 20, 1990. The per curiam opinion vacated his convictions on counts 6, 9 and 10 and remanded them for a Kastigar hearing, at which the government would have to show that its evidence came from sources independent of his immunized congressional testimony. It reversed count 9 for want of a particularized unanimity instruction. Wald dissented from several holdings, and Silberman dissented from others and concurred in one.[^27][^28] John Poindexter was convicted on five felony counts. On November 15, 1991 the court reversed all counts in United States v. Poindexter, decided by a panel of Chief Judge Abner Mikva, Judge Douglas Ginsburg and Judge Sentelle. The opinion cites the North decision as modified, 920 F.2d 940.[^29] The Walsh report's prosecution summaries give the same dates for these rulings.[^28] ### The Letelier murder appeals On September 21, 1976, Orlando Letelier, the former Chilean ambassador to the United States, and [Ronni Moffitt](/people/ronni-moffitt/), an American associate, were killed in Washington by a car bomb. The court's per curiam opinion in United States v. Novo Sampol, decided September 15, 1980, recounts the case against the defendants. [Michael Townley](/people/michael-townley/), a United States citizen who had entered the employ of the Chilean intelligence service DINA, was the principal government witness, and he had struck a plea bargain with the government in return for his testimony.[^30] The reporter caption records the argument on June 10, 1980, the decision on September 15, 1980 and the denial of rehearing on December 9, 1980.[^31] [Guillermo Novo](/people/guillermo-novo/), [Ignacio Novo](/people/ignacio-novo/) and [Alvin Ross](/people/alvin-ross/) were the defendants at the first trial.[^30] The court reversed the convictions of Guillermo Novo and Ross on the authority of United States v. Henry, decided by the Supreme Court on June 16, 1980.[^32] The court reversed Ignacio Novo's conviction for failure to sever his trial from his co-defendants' trial.[^30] According to the FBI case agent's account, all three were active in the [Cuban Nationalist Movement](/organizations/cuban-nationalist-movement/), an anti-Castro organization, and Guillermo Novo and Ross had been sentenced to two consecutive life terms before the appeal. Dade County police arrested Guillermo Novo and Ross on weapons and drug charges during negotiations with Townley's lawyers, and the account says that the key to conviction lay in Townley's testimony. Ignacio Novo had been charged with one count of misprision of a felony.[^33] The FBI case agent on the investigation, [Carter Cornick](/people/carter-cornick/), wrote that the reversal in September 1980 rested on Henry. On May 30, 1981 a federal jury acquitted Guillermo Novo and Ross of all murder charges and convicted Guillermo Novo of false declarations. The two Novo brothers had also been charged with two counts each of making false declarations to a grand jury. Five months later, Ignacio Novo pleaded guilty to a charge of false declarations.[^33] ### Wiretaps and the Nixon-era national security surveillance The court's leading en banc decision on warrantless national security wiretaps is Zweibon v. Mitchell, decided June 23, 1975. Sixteen individuals who had been members of the [Jewish Defense League](/organizations/jewish-defense-league/) sued Attorney General [John N. Mitchell](/people/john-n-mitchell/) and FBI personnel over electronic surveillance of the organization's telephones. The opinion records that Attorney General Mitchell first approved an FBI request to install wiretaps on JDL headquarters in October 1970, during the twenty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly, fearing "international embarrassment or Soviet retaliation against American citizens living in Moscow." He approved a second request in early January 1971 for a wiretap authorized to last 90 days. An affidavit that Mitchell later submitted stated that the surveillance was authorized by the President of the United States, acting through the Attorney General. The opinion also records that neither Mitchell nor other officials in his office reviewed the information obtained from the taps or the necessity for them, and that Mitchell was unaware that the taps continued for more than a month after criminal indictments were handed down against several individuals. The plurality opinion of Judge J. Skelly Wright, announcing the judgment, held that "a warrant must be obtained before a wiretap is installed on a domestic organization that is neither the agent of nor acting in collaboration with a foreign power."[^34] The companion case of Halperin v. Kissinger was decided on July 12, 1979 by Chief Judge Wright, Judge Robinson and District Judge Gesell.[^35] The Halperins sued over the wiretap of the home telephone of [Morton H. Halperin](/people/morton-h-halperin/), a National Security Council staff member. The opinion recounts that FBI officials and [Alexander M. Haig, Jr.](/people/alexander-m-haig-jr/), then an assistant to [Henry Kissinger](/people/henry-a-kissinger/), agreed on procedures for surveillance with "no record maintained" in the Bureau's normal files. The opinion records that [J. Edgar Hoover](/people/j-edgar-hoover/) and Kissinger conferred by telephone four times on the day the wiretap on the Halperin home telephone was in place by evening. The summaries of the logs went to Kissinger, to [Richard Nixon](/people/richard-nixon/) through John Ehrlichman, and to Mitchell. After May 1970 the court's account names only H. R. Haldeman as a recipient. On appeal the court affirmed on the defendants' immunity questions, reversed on the applicability of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and on the measure of damages, reversed the summary judgment for Kissinger, and remanded.[^35] The Supreme Court divided equally on the appeal and the case returned to the district court. On December 5, 1986, in Halperin v. Kissinger, 807 F.2d 180, the court addressed the twenty-one month wiretap again. The opinion, printed under the name of Scalia as circuit justice with a concurrence by Judge Mikva joined by Judge Robinson, recites that the proximate impetus for the wiretap was a New York Times article of May 9, 1969 on the bombing of Cambodia, that Kissinger dispatched the FBI to trace the source at Nixon's request, and that FBI Director Hoover named Halperin the prime suspect. It affirmed summary judgment for the defendants as to the initiation of the wiretap and remanded for the district court to fix the period, ending no later than May 1970, in which no reasonable jury could find the national security purpose pretextual.[^36] ### The Watergate and Room 16 appeals United States v. Liddy, decided November 8, 1974 by Judge Leventhal, affirmed the conviction of [G. Gordon Liddy](/people/g-gordon-liddy/) on the six counts of the September 15, 1972 indictment arising from the burglary and wiretapping of the Democratic National Committee offices on June 17, 1972. The opinion records that five of the seven defendants pleaded guilty after the trial opened before Chief Judge John Sirica in January 1973, that Liddy and [James McCord](/people/james-mccord/) were found guilty on January 30, 1973, and that the government's evidence concerned the efforts of Liddy, [Howard Hunt](/people/howard-hunt/) and McCord to obtain political intelligence from the headquarters of Democratic presidential candidates and from the committee.[^37] On October 12, 1976 the court sitting en banc decided United States v. Haldeman in a per curiam opinion, with Judge MacKinnon dissenting in part. The indictment of March 1, 1974 had named Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, Robert Mardian, Kenneth Parkinson and Gordon Strachan. The court described the charges as an unprecedented scandal at the highest levels of government. The jury returned its verdict on January 1, 1975, acquitting Parkinson, convicting Mardian of conspiracy, and convicting Mitchell, Haldeman and Ehrlichman of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and of the perjury counts submitted. The three were sentenced to concurrent terms of 20 months to five years on the conspiracy and obstruction counts. The opinion calls the intelligence plan code-named Gemstone the brainchild of Liddy, general counsel of the Committee to Re-elect the President, and affirmed the convictions of the three.[^38] Three appeals decided on May 17, 1976 by a panel of Judges Leventhal and Wilkey and District Judge Robert Merhige concerned the September 1971 entry into the Beverly Hills office of the psychiatrist of [Daniel Ellsberg](/people/daniel-ellsberg/). The opinions describe a White House unit formed after the publication of the Pentagon Papers, called Room 16, under the general supervision of Ehrlichman and operated by Egil Krogh and David Young, to which Liddy and Hunt were added. In United States v. Ehrlichman, Wilkey wrote for the court affirming the convictions of Ehrlichman for conspiracy and perjury.[^39] In United States v. Barker the court reversed the judgment against Bernard Barker and Eugenio Martinez and remanded for a new trial, with Wilkey and Merhige filing opinions and Leventhal dissenting. Wilkey's opinion records that Hunt had been Barker's immediate supervisor in the CIA's [Bay of Pigs Invasion](/events/bay-of-pigs/) operation, and that in August 1971 Hunt asked Barker to help conduct an entry to obtain national security information on "a traitor to this country who was passing classified information to the Soviet Embassy."[^40] United States v. Liddy, decided the same day with Merhige writing, affirmed Liddy's conviction for conspiring to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the psychiatrist; Gesell had sentenced him on July 31, 1974 to one to three years concurrent with his Watergate sentence.[^41] On June 21, 1983 Judges Mikva, Edwards and Scalia decided Gray v. Bell, with Edwards writing. After a two-year Justice Department investigation begun in the spring of 1976 into FBI break-ins against relatives and acquaintances of suspected members of the Weatherman Underground, a grand jury indicted L. Patrick Gray III, who had served as Acting Director of the FBI, with Mark Felt and Edward Miller on a charge of conspiring to injure and oppress citizens. Prosecutors later agreed to dismissal, and Gray sued [Griffin Bell](/people/griffin-bell/) and other Justice Department officials for damages. The court affirmed the dismissal of his amended complaint on grounds of official immunity and the discretionary function exception.[^42] ### The Scientology prosecutions United States v. Heldt, decided October 2, 1981 as a per curiam opinion with a separate opinion by Judge Wald, affirmed the judgments against members of the [Church of Scientology](/organizations/scientology/) who had been convicted of conspiracy and related offenses. The appellants included Mary Sue Hubbard and Henning Heldt, whom the court identifies as ranking officers of the Guardians in the United States, with offices in Hollywood, California. The appellants challenged evidence seized in searches of Scientology offices in California. The district court denied the suppression motion after a hearing, and the court of appeals affirmed the judgment.[^43] The organization was founded by [L. Ron Hubbard](/people/l-ron-hubbard/). ### INSLAW and the PROMIS appeals INSLAW, Inc., the developer of the PROMIS case-tracking software, filed for reorganization and invoked the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. 362(a) in its dispute with the Justice Department over the Department's continued use of the software. The bankruptcy court's ruling is reported at 83 B.R. 89 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1988). The district court's opinion of November 22, 1989, reported at 113 B.R. 802, recites that ruling and the Justice Department's argument that the bankruptcy judge should have recused himself. The opinion describes the circuit's January 11, 1988 decision not to reappoint [George Francis Bason, Jr.](/people/george-francis-bason-jr/) as the factual setting for that argument.[^44] The circuit's opinion in United States v. INSLAW, Inc., decided May 7, 1991 by Judges Buckley, Stephen Williams and Randolph, with Williams writing for the court, held that the automatic stay did not reach the Department's use of property in its possession under a claim of right at the time of the bankruptcy filing. It held that the bankruptcy court therefore lacked jurisdiction over the claims asserted under section 362(a). The court reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the orders and dismiss INSLAW's complaint against the Department.[^45] Rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied in No. 90-5052 on July 12, 1991.[^45] The opinion records that INSLAW filed a claim with the contracting officer on October 17, 1985 under the Contract Disputes Act, that the contracting officer ruled against INSLAW on February 21, 1986, and that the Department's use of the enhanced software was the subject of the stay claim.[^45] According to the House Judiciary Committee's report of September 10, 1992, INSLAW's counsel Leigh Ratiner wrote on March 14, 1986 to [Peter Videnieks](/people/peter-videnieks/), whom the report treats as the contracting officer, that any continued use of the enhanced PROMIS software without INSLAW's consent contravened its property rights as a debtor and violated the automatic stay. The circuit's holding was that the stay "does not reach the Department's use of property in its possession under a claim of right at the time of the bankruptcy filing, even if that use may ultimately prove to violate the bankrupt's rights."[^46][^45] ### FOIA and the Glomar responses The Glomar response dates to Phillippi v. Central Intelligence Agency, decided November 16, 1976 by Judge Wright, with a dissent by Judge MacKinnon. The request concerned the Hughes Glomar Explorer. The press stories that prompted it said that the ship's actual owner and operator was the United States Government. The CIA answered that "in the interest of national security, involvement by the U.S. Government in the activities which are the subject matter of your request can neither be confirmed nor denied."[^47] The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a public justification of the refusal to confirm or deny the existence of records.[^47] McGehee v. Central Intelligence Agency, decided January 4, 1983 by Judges Wright, Edwards and Bork, arose from a request by Fielding McGehee for CIA records on the [People's Temple](/organizations/peoples-temple/). The agency's search used a cut-off date of December 22, 1978 that it had not disclosed. The court wrote that "the cumulative weight of this evidence of bad faith is enough to vitiate the credit to which agency affidavits are ordinarily entitled." It reversed and remanded.[^48] Electronic Privacy Information Center v. National Security Agency, decided May 11, 2012 by Judges Brown and Kavanaugh and Senior Judge Ginsburg, affirmed the NSA's Glomar response under Exemption 3 and section 6 of the National Security Agency Act. The request followed a January 2010 cyberattack on Google that targeted Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The agency answered on March 10, 2010 that it could neither confirm nor deny the existence of responsive records.[^49] National Security Archive v. Central Intelligence Agency, decided June 7, 2024 by Judge Childs for the court, with Judge Rao and Senior Judge Ginsburg, concerned a January 1989 end-of-tour report addendum by a senior Air Force intelligence officer on an elevated Soviet alert status in 1983. The CIA produced the memorandum's cover letter and withheld the rest under Exemptions 1 and 3. The Archive argued that the memorandum had been published in the State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States in February 2021, so that the agency had waived the exemptions under the official acknowledgment and public domain doctrines. The court disagreed. It noted that the volume cited a CIA source and thanked CIA staff for arranging access to agency records, and that publication in the series requires declassification review by the originating agency. It affirmed the judgment for the agency.[^50] ### Presidential records and the National Security Archive National Security Archive v. Department of Defense, decided July 28, 1989 by Judges Robinson, Mikva and Douglas Ginsburg, held that the Archive, which described its work as collecting and disseminating comprehensive government documentation on foreign, defense, intelligence and international economic policy, was not an educational institution but was a representative of the news media entitled to reduced fees under the Freedom of Information Act.[^51] In Armstrong v. Bush, decided January 25, 1991 by Judges Wald, Douglas Ginsburg and Randolph, with Wald writing, Scott Armstrong, the Archive and other plaintiffs sued President George H. W. Bush, the Archivist and the National Security Council to prevent the erasure of material on the NSC computer system from the last two weeks of the Reagan administration. The court reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded.[^52] On August 13, 1993 a panel of Chief Judge Mikva and Judges Wald and Henderson decided Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274, in a per curiam opinion rejecting the government's position that paper printouts satisfied the Federal Records Act, because the printouts could omit the identity of the sender or recipient and the time of receipt of the electronic record.[^53] On August 2, 1996 Judges Edwards, Ginsburg and Tatel decided the next round: Ginsburg, for the court, held that the National Security Council is not an agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act, because it does not exercise substantial independent authority, and reversed the district court; Tatel dissented.[^54] National Security Archive v. Central Intelligence Agency, 752 F.3d 460, decided May 20, 2014 by Judges Rogers, Kavanaugh and Williams, concerned the fifth volume of the CIA staff historian Jack Pfeiffer's five-volume history of the Bay of Pigs operation, begun in 1973. The CIA had released revised drafts of the first three volumes and the draft of the fourth, and withheld the fifth under Exemption 5. Kavanaugh wrote for the court affirming on the deliberative process privilege; Rogers dissented.[^55] On May 28, 2019 Judges Tatel, Pillard and Edwards decided Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump, in which the organization and the Archive sought mandamus against the use of White House messaging applications that delete messages once read. The court affirmed the denial of the writ because the plaintiffs had not shown a clear and indisputable right to relief.[^56] Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency, decided December 7, 2007 by Judges Henderson, Rogers and Tatel, with Rogers writing, concerned the request of the journalist Jefferson Morley of July 4, 2003 for all records pertaining to the CIA operations officer George Efythron Joannides, also known as Howard, Mr. Howard or Walter Newby. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the agency and remanded so that the CIA could search its operational files, holding that its release of records under the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act did not relieve it of its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.[^57] On June 18, 2013 a per curiam opinion with a concurrence by Kavanaugh vacated the denial of attorney's fees and remanded; the court described Joannides as the CIA case officer in charge of a Cuban group whose officers had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald in the months before the assassination.[^58] ### Financial General and the pendent jurisdiction ruling Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, decided May 18, 1982 by Chief Judge Wright, Judge MacKinnon and Judge Ginsburg, arose from a suit that [Financial General Bankshares](/organizations/financial-general-bankshares/) filed on February 17, 1978 against persons buying its shares after it learned that a group of Middle Eastern investors held twenty percent of its common stock. [Eugene Metzger](/people/eugene-metzger/), an attorney who had served as its counsel, was one of the defendants. The opinion records that the Securities and Exchange Commission filed and settled its own action on March 18, 1978 and that on April 27, 1978 the district court entered a preliminary injunction. The court of appeals held that the district court abused its discretion in exercising pendent jurisdiction. It vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss, without reaching the merits.[^59] ### The Fairness Doctrine, Puharich and psychic claims In Puharich v. Brenner, decided June 25, 1969 with Leventhal writing, [Andrija Puharich](/people/andrija-puharich/) appealed a judgment for the Commissioner of Patents in an action under 35 U.S.C. 145 for a patent on a device the opinion describes as a cage with electrical installations in the screen casing for generating currents and impulses, claimed to expand extrasensory perception. The court wrote that the trial judge had assumed for the purposes of the case that an ESP phenomenon existed and had asked whether the invention was operable, and affirmed.[^60] The [Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal](/organizations/committee-for-the-scientific-investigation-of-claims-of-the-paranormal/) filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission under the Fairness Doctrine against the NBC program "Exploring the Unknown." After the commission rejected the complaint, CSICOP petitioned the court on April 27, 1979. The committee's periodical reported the appeal in its Fall 1979 issue.[^61] In a later fairness case, [Fairness in Media](/organizations/fairness-in-media/) petitioned the court on May 18, 1987 (No. 87-1217) to review a commission ruling on CBS, and the court affirmed the commission in an unpublished per curiam opinion on June 8, 1988, assuming without deciding that the group was positioned to seek review. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 11, 1988.[^62] The same court had heard a broadcast dispute fifteen years earlier, in No. 18,738, in which the Citizens TV Protest Committee and Clarksburg Publishing Company appealed a March 13, 1964 FCC order. That order assigned the license of WBOY-TV in Clarksburg, West Virginia, from Rust Craft Broadcasting Company to Northern West Virginia Television Broadcasting Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Fortnightly Corporation. The appellants' brief states that the commission granted the assignment without an evidentiary hearing, that Fortnightly owned and operated a community antenna system in Clarksburg, and that the acquisition "would give Fortnightly, owner and publisher of the Reporter Magazine, an additional medium for public discussion of national affairs." The brief also questioned whether a hearing should have been held on a Fortnightly statement about the involvement of its organization in recent antitrust violations. The brief lists [Max Ascoli](/people/max-ascoli/) as a vice president and director of Northern West Virginia Television Broadcasting Company.[^63] The court's clearest psi ruling is Geller v. Randi, decided December 9, 1994 by Judges Wald, Sentelle and Rogers, with Sentelle writing for the court. The suit was brought by [Uri Geller](/people/uri-geller/). CSICOP moved on January 15, 1992 for summary judgment and for Rule 11 sanctions. Geller did not respond to the motions, and the district court imposed sanctions. The court of appeals affirmed the Rule 11 sanctions.[^64] ### The 1993 health care task force Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton, decided June 22, 1993 by Judges Silberman, Buckley and Williams, concerned the President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform, which [Hillary Clinton](/people/hillary-clinton/) chaired. The plaintiffs argued that the task force was subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The task force comprised about 300 permanent federal employees and about 40 special government employees. The majority held that the task force was not an advisory group subject to the act, and it remanded for further proceedings on the working group. Its reasoning relied in part on 3 U.S.C. 105(e), which allows the President to designate a member of his family to assist him, and on whether the First Lady could be treated as a de facto officer or employee. Judge Buckley, concurring in the judgment, wrote that he did not think section 105(e) could reasonably be read to create an officer or employee, de facto or otherwise.[^65] ### Cheney and the energy group The National Energy Policy Development Group, which [Dick Cheney](/people/dick-cheney/) chaired, was sued by Judicial Watch under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. On July 8, 2003 Judges Edwards, Randolph and Tatel considered the government's petition for a writ of mandamus against a discovery order of the district court.[^66] On June 24, 2004 the Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case.[^67] ### Schneider and the Chile suits The Schneider family's original complaint, filed in the district court on September 10, 2001, named Henry Kissinger, the [United States](/places/united-states/) and [Richard Helms](/people/richard-helms/). The amended complaint of November 11, 2002 named Kissinger and the United States, and the district court dismissed the case on March 30, 2004. In Schneider v. Kissinger, decided June 28, 2005 by Judges Sentelle, Henderson and Rogers, the court affirmed the dismissal on political question grounds.[^68] ### The Pollard appeals In United States v. Pollard, decided March 20, 1992 by Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Silberman and Williams, with Silberman writing, the court affirmed the denial of the motion of Pollard under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to withdraw his guilty plea of June 4, 1986 to one count of conspiracy to deliver national defense information to a foreign government. The opinion describes Pollard as a Navy intelligence research specialist who removed large amounts of classified material over about eighteen months from June 1984 through November 1985. Theodore Olson argued for Pollard. His motion claimed that the government had linked the plea of [Anne Henderson-Pollard](/people/anne-henderson-pollard/) to his own, had breached the plea agreement in its sentencing allocution, and had given Chief Judge Aubrey Robinson ex parte communications; the district court declined to recuse and denied access to the classified sentencing submission of [Caspar Weinberger](/people/caspar-weinberger/). The panel held that any error in refusing new counsel access to the Weinberger submission was harmless. Williams concurred in part and dissented in part.[^69] On July 22, 2005 Judges Sentelle, Henderson and Rogers decided United States v. Pollard, 416 F.3d 48. Sentelle, for the court, held that Pollard's second section 2255 motion, filed September 20, 2000, was untimely and declined a certificate of appealability, and held that the federal courts lack jurisdiction to review claims for access to documents needed for a clemency petition under Article II, vacating the order on the request of his counsel for access to the classified sentencing file. Rogers concurred in part and dissented in part.[^70] ### The Esquire article and McFarlane McFarlane v. Esquire Magazine, decided January 30, 1996 by Judges Stephen Williams, Ginsburg and Randolph, arose from the libel suit that [Robert McFarlane](/people/robert-mcfarlane/) brought against Esquire Magazine and the writer [Craig Unger](/people/craig-unger/). The court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against Unger for lack of personal jurisdiction, and it affirmed the decision to dismiss rather than transfer the case.[^71] The opinion by Judge Williams records that the district court held that no reasonable jury could find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, and it reproduces the disputed passage of the October 1991 article, which attributed to a sworn affidavit that [Elliot Richardson](/people/elliot-richardson/) submitted for INSLAW the statement of [Ari Ben-Menashe](/people/ari-ben-menashe/) that McFarlane and [Earl Brian](/people/earl-brian/) had a "special relationship" with Israeli intelligence, McFarlane having been recruited by [Rafael Eitan](/people/rafael-eitan/), and that "McFarlane was the famous Mr. X in the Pollard case." The court wrote that the recruitment clause "is not in the affidavit," that nothing in the affidavit supported the article's following sentences making McFarlane out to be an equivalent of Pollard, and that McFarlane did not dispute that Ben-Menashe made these assertions to Unger.[^71] The opinion also states that a bipartisan task force of the House of Representatives rejected the October Surprise claims in January 1993.[^71] In McFarlane v. Sheridan Square Press, decided August 16, 1996 by Judges Williams, Ginsburg and Rogers, with Ginsburg writing, the court affirmed summary judgment for the publisher of Ben-Menashe's 1992 book Profits of War, on the ground that McFarlane could not show actual malice. The opinion summarizes the book's allegation of an October Surprise conspiracy involving candidate George Bush, Republicans in the 1980 campaign and Iranian officials, and Ben-Menashe's allegation that McFarlane played an important role and was an Israeli spy. The court wrote that the House task force's joint report had thoroughly discredited the October Surprise story.[^72] ### Microsoft The court's most consequential antitrust decision in the record is United States v. Microsoft Corp., decided June 28, 2001 by the court sitting en banc in a per curiam opinion. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the findings that Microsoft had violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and it addressed Microsoft's claims of judicial misconduct and appearance of partiality against the trial judge.[^73] ### Recent cases The 2025 cases on the court's docket include In re Musk, No. 25-5072. The defendants in New Mexico v. Musk petitioned for a writ of mandamus on March 18, 2025 against an expedited discovery order that the district court had entered on March 12 in the states' suit. The circuit granted an emergency stay, ordering on March 26, 2025 that the March 12 order be stayed pending further order, and the district court stayed its own order the same day; the district court's opinion of June 10, 2025 recites both.[^74] In a separate matter, the court decided No. 25-5130 on July 14, 2025 and denied rehearing on December 18, 2025, and the government's petition for certiorari in that case, No. 25-1103, was filed on March 18, 2026.[^75] In Associated Press v. Budowich, No. 25-5109, a panel of Judges Pillard, Katsas and Rao on June 6, 2025 granted a stay pending appeal in part, staying the district court's injunction except as applied to the East Room. Judge Rao, joined by Judge Katsas, wrote that "these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion" and that "[t]he White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted." Judge Pillard would have denied the stay.[^76] On July 22, 2025 the court denied the Associated Press's motion for en banc reconsideration and vacatur of the stay order.[^77] The Commodity Futures Trading Commission appealed as No. 24-5205 after Jia M. Cobb granted summary judgment on September 12, 2024 to [Kalshi](/organizations/kalshi/) on the legality of its event contracts. On May 5, 2025, after a 3 to 0 commission vote, the agency moved to dismiss its appeal voluntarily, each side bearing its own costs. Yaakov Roth argued the appeal for Kalshi in January 2025 and joined the Justice Department the following month, according to Protos.[^78] In United States v. Littlejohn, No. 24-3019, decided July 17, 2026, a panel of Judges Rao and Walker, with Senior Judge Rogers, affirmed a five-year sentence for a former IRS consultant who leaked taxpayer data. Judge Walker wrote the opinion. The court wrote that Littlejohn "leaked what he stole to [ProPublica](/organizations/propublica/), which used data regarding at least 152 of his victims in about 50 articles," and it added that "ProPublica is sitting on the private, as-yet-unpublished data of other taxpayers stolen by Littlejohn."[^79] [^1]: Act of February 9, 1893, 27 Stat. 434, establishing a court of appeals for the District of Columbia. Government Publishing Office, Statutes at Large, volume 27, page 434. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-27/pdf/STATUTE-27-Pg434.pdf [^2]: 28 U.S.C. 44(a), circuit judges by circuit, listing eleven judges for the District of Columbia Circuit. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/44 [^3]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Bork, Robert Heron," confirmed February 8, 1982, service terminated February 5, 1988 by resignation. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/bork-robert-heron [^4]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Scalia, Antonin," commissioned August 17, 1982, service terminated September 26, 1986 on appointment to the Supreme Court. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/scalia-antonin [^5]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Ginsburg, Ruth Bader," commissioned June 18, 1980, service terminated August 10, 1993. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/ginsburg-ruth-bader [^6]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Thomas, Clarence," commissioned March 6, 1990, service terminated October 23, 1991 on appointment to the Supreme Court. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/thomas-clarence [^7]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Roberts, John Glover, Jr.," commissioned June 2, 2003, service terminated September 29, 2005. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/roberts-john-glover-jr [^8]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Kavanaugh, Brett Michael," commissioned May 30, 2006, service terminated October 5, 2018. Federal Judicial Center judges dataset, https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/history/judges.csv [^9]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Garland, Merrick Brian," commissioned March 20, 1997, retirement March 10, 2021. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/garland-merrick-b [^10]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Silberman, Laurence Henry," commissioned October 28, 1985, senior status November 1, 2000, died October 2, 2022. Federal Judicial Center judges dataset, https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/history/judges.csv [^11]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Sentelle, David Bryan," commissioned September 11, 1987, chief judge 2008 to 2013, senior status February 12, 2013. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/sentelle-david-bryan [^12]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Edwards, Harry Theodore," commissioned February 20, 1980, senior status November 3, 2005. Federal Judicial Center judges dataset, https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/history/judges.csv [^13]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Wilkey, Malcolm Richard," commissioned February 25, 1970, senior status December 6, 1984, retired November 8, 1985. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/wilkey-malcolm-richard [^14]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Bazelon, David Lionel," recess appointment October 21, 1949, senior status June 30, 1979, died February 19, 1993. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/bazelon-david-l [^15]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Wald, Patricia McGowan," commissioned July 26, 1979, retired November 16, 1999. Federal Judicial Center judges dataset, https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/history/judges.csv [^16]: United States v. Inslaw, Inc., 113 B.R. 802 (D.D.C. Nov. 22, 1989), recording a letter addressed to "Chief Judge Wald of the D.C. Circuit." https://cite.case.law/br/113/802/ [^17]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Starr, Kenneth Winston," commissioned September 20, 1983, resignation May 26, 1989. Federal Judicial Center judges dataset, https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/history/judges.csv [^18]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Mikva, Abner Joseph," commissioned September 26, 1979, chief judge 1991 to 1994, retired September 19, 1994. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/mikva-abner-joseph [^19]: Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, "Ginsburg, Douglas Howard," commissioned October 14, 1986, chief judge 2001 to 2008, senior status October 14, 2011. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/ginsburg-douglas-howard [^20]: Federal Judicial Center judges dataset for Rao, Neomi Jehangir (commissioned March 18, 2019), Katsas, Gregory George (December 8, 2017), Pillard, Cornelia Thomas Livingston (December 17, 2013), Walker, Justin Reed (September 2, 2020) and Rogers, Judith Ann Wilson (commissioned March 11, 1994, senior status September 1, 2022). https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/history/judges.csv [^21]: Federal Judicial Center judges dataset (commission, chief judge and senior status dates for Wright, Leventhal, MacKinnon, Robb, Robinson, McGowan, Burger, Buckley, Williams, Henderson, Randolph and Tatel). https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/history/judges.csv [^22]: Miller Center, University of Virginia, "William P. Barr Oral History," interview of April 5, 2001, George H.W. Bush Oral History Project. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-oral-histories/william-p-barr-oral-history; Federal Judicial Center biographical entries for Paul G. Cassell (https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/cassell-paul-g) and Paul Adam Engelmayer (https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/engelmayer-paul-adam). [^23]: 28 U.S.C. 49, assignment of judges to a division of the court for the appointment of independent counsels, subsection (f). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/49 [^24]: Office of Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters (Lawrence E. Walsh), Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, Volume I, Investigations and Prosecutions (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993), caption "Division No. 86-6"; transmittal letter of August 4, 1993 to Chief Judge David B. Sentelle; chronology entries for December 4 and December 19, 1986; summary of the January 1988 panel decision. https://archive.org/details/WalshReport [^25]: In re Sealed Case, 838 F.2d 476 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 22, 1988) (Ginsburg, Silberman and Williams, JJ.), reversing the contempt orders against Olson, Dinkins and Schmults. https://cite.case.law/f2d/838/476/ [^26]: Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), decided June 29, 1988. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/487/654 [^27]: United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. July 20, 1990) (per curiam; Wald, C.J., Silberman and Sentelle, JJ.), disposition paragraph and separate statements of Wald, C.J., and Silberman, J. https://cite.case.law/f2d/910/843/ [^28]: Walsh, Final Report, Volume I, prosecution summaries for Oliver L. North (conviction and the July 20, 1990 appellate ruling) and John M. Poindexter (the November 15, 1991 reversal), and the discussion of the Kastigar and evidentiary-use rulings. https://archive.org/details/WalshReport [^29]: United States v. Poindexter, 951 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 15, 1991) (Mikva, C.J., D.H. Ginsburg and Sentelle, JJ.), reversing all counts and citing the North decision as modified, 920 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1990). https://cite.case.law/f2d/951/369/ [^30]: United States v. Novo Sampol, 636 F.2d 621 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15, 1980) (per curiam; MacKinnon and Robb, JJ., and Corcoran, D.J.), recounting the bombing of September 21, 1976, Townley's plea bargain, the reversal of the convictions of Guillermo Novo and Ross, and the severance ruling as to Ignacio Novo. https://cite.case.law/f2d/636/621/ [^31]: United States v. Novo Sampol, 636 F.2d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1980), caption: argued June 10, 1980, decided September 15, 1980, rehearing denied December 9, 1980 (Nos. 79-1541, 79-1542 and 79-1808). https://cite.case.law/f2d/636/621/ [^32]: United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980), decided June 16, 1980. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/264 [^33]: L. Carter Cornick Jr., "Chilbom," The Grapevine (Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI), August 2016, pp. 11 to 16, describing the Cuban Nationalist Movement suspects, the arrests during plea negotiations, the misprision charge, the September 1980 reversal on the basis of Henry, the May 30, 1981 verdicts and the later guilty plea of Ignacio Novo. https://fbistudies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FBI-Grapevine-Chilbom.pdf [^34]: Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. June 23, 1975) (en banc) (opinion of Wright, J., announcing the judgment), describing the Attorney General's approvals of the October 1970 and January 1971 requests, the affidavit of Mitchell, and the review of the taps by his office. https://cite.case.law/f2d/516/594/ [^35]: Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. July 12, 1979) (Wright, C.J., Robinson, J., and Gesell, D.J.), reciting the surveillance procedures, the telephone conference between Hoover and Kissinger, the distribution of the logs, and the disposition of the appeal. https://cite.case.law/f2d/606/1192/ [^36]: Halperin v. Kissinger, 807 F.2d 180 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 5, 1986) (No. 84-5095, argued May 1, 1985; Mikva, J., concurring, joined by Robinson, J.), on the May 9, 1969 New York Times article, the dispatch of the FBI, the identification of Halperin and the remand. https://cite.case.law/f2d/807/180/ [^37]: United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 8, 1974) (en banc) (No. 73-1565; Leventhal, J.), Parts I and II. https://cite.case.law/f2d/509/428/ [^38]: United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 12, 1976) (en banc) (per curiam; MacKinnon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), Parts I.A and I.B, indictment of March 1, 1974, verdict of January 1, 1975, and the sentences. https://cite.case.law/f2d/559/31/ [^39]: United States v. Ehrlichman, 546 F.2d 910 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 1976) (No. 74-1882; Wilkey, J., for the court; Leventhal, J., concurring), Part I. https://cite.case.law/f2d/546/910/ [^40]: United States v. Barker, 546 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 1976) (Nos. 74-1883, 74-1884; per curiam; opinions of Wilkey, J., and Merhige, D.J.; Leventhal, J., dissenting), Part I (Facts). https://cite.case.law/f2d/546/940/ [^41]: United States v. Liddy, 542 F.2d 76 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 1976) (No. 74-1885; Merhige, D.J., for the court), affirming the conviction and reciting the sentence of July 31, 1974. https://cite.case.law/f2d/542/76/ [^42]: Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 1983) (No. 82-1838; Mikva, Edwards and Scalia, JJ.; Edwards, J., for the court), Parts I through IV. https://cite.case.law/f2d/712/490/ [^43]: United States v. Heldt, 668 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 2, 1981) (per curiam; MacKinnon, Robb and Wald, JJ.), identifying Mary Sue Hubbard and Henning Heldt as ranking officers of the Guardians in the United States and affirming the judgment. https://cite.case.law/f2d/668/1238/ [^44]: United States v. Inslaw, Inc., 113 B.R. 802 (D.D.C. Nov. 22, 1989), reciting In re Inslaw, Inc., 83 B.R. 89 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1988), the Justice Department's recusal argument and the January 11, 1988 decision not to reappoint the bankruptcy judge. https://cite.case.law/br/113/802/ [^45]: United States v. Inslaw, Inc., 932 F.2d 1467 (D.C. Cir. May 7, 1991) (Buckley, Williams and Randolph, JJ.; Williams, J., for the court), holding the automatic stay inapplicable and remanding with directions; the caption records rehearing and rehearing en banc denied in No. 90-5052 on July 12, 1991, and the opinion recites the claim to the contracting officer of October 17, 1985 and the contracting officer's ruling of February 21, 1986. https://cite.case.law/f2d/932/1467/ [^46]: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report, H. Rept. 102-857, 102d Cong., 2d sess., September 10, 1992, p. 35 n. 85, quoting the letter of Leigh S. Ratiner to Peter Videnieks, March 14, 1986. https://archive.org/details/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport [^47]: Phillippi v. Central Intelligence Agency, 546 F.2d 1009 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 16, 1976) (Wright, J., for the court; MacKinnon, J., dissenting), quoting the CIA's response and the press accounts of the vessel's ownership, and remanding for a public justification. https://cite.case.law/f2d/546/1009/ [^48]: McGehee v. Central Intelligence Agency, 697 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 4, 1983) (Wright, Edwards and Bork, JJ.), on the undisclosed cut-off date, the bad faith finding and the reversal. https://cite.case.law/f2d/697/1095/ [^49]: Electronic Privacy Information Center v. National Security Agency, 678 F.3d 926 (D.C. Cir. May 11, 2012) (Brown and Kavanaugh, JJ., and Ginsburg, S.J.), affirming the Glomar response under Exemption 3 and the National Security Agency Act. https://cite.case.law/f3d/678/926/ [^50]: National Security Archive v. Central Intelligence Agency, No. 23-5017 (D.C. Cir. June 7, 2024) (Childs, J., for the court; Rao and Ginsburg, S.J.), affirming summary judgment for the agency under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3, on the official acknowledgment and public domain arguments. https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/06/23-5017-2058350.pdf [^51]: National Security Archive v. U.S. Department of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. July 28, 1989) (No. 88-5217; Robinson, Mikva and D.H. Ginsburg, JJ.; D.H. Ginsburg, J., for the court). https://cite.case.law/f2d/880/1381/ [^52]: Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 1991) (No. 90-5173; Wald, D.H. Ginsburg and Randolph, JJ.; Wald, J., for the court). https://cite.case.law/f2d/924/282/ [^53]: Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 1993) (Nos. 93-5002 et al.; Mikva, C.J., Wald and Henderson, JJ.; per curiam). https://cite.case.law/f3d/1/1274/ [^54]: Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 90 F.3d 553 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 2, 1996) (Nos. 95-5057, 95-5061; Edwards, C.J., Ginsburg and Tatel, JJ.; Ginsburg, J., for the court; Tatel, J., dissenting). https://cite.case.law/f3d/90/553/ [^55]: National Security Archive v. Central Intelligence Agency, 752 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. May 20, 2014) (No. 12-5201; Rogers, Kavanaugh and Williams, JJ.; Kavanaugh, J., for the court; Rogers, J., dissenting). https://cite.case.law/f3d/752/460/ [^56]: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump, 924 F.3d 602 (D.C. Cir. May 28, 2019) (No. 18-5150; Tatel and Pillard, JJ., and Edwards, S.J.; Tatel, J., for the court). https://cite.case.law/f3d/924/602/ [^57]: Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 2007) (No. 06-5382; Henderson, Rogers and Tatel, JJ.; Rogers, J., for the court). https://cite.case.law/f3d/508/1108/ [^58]: Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency, 719 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. June 18, 2013) (No. 12-5032; Kavanaugh, J., and Edwards and Williams, S.JJ.; per curiam; Kavanaugh, J., concurring). https://cite.case.law/f3d/719/689/ [^59]: Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1982) (Wright, C.J., MacKinnon and Ginsburg, JJ.), reciting the complaint of February 17, 1978, the SEC action of March 18, 1978 and the preliminary injunction of April 27, 1978, and vacating the judgment with instructions to dismiss. https://cite.case.law/f2d/680/768/ [^60]: Puharich v. Brenner, 415 F.2d 979 (D.C. Cir. June 25, 1969) (No. 22286; Leventhal, J.). https://cite.case.law/f2d/415/979/ [^61]: "CSICP appeals ruling of FCC," News and Comment, The Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 4, no. 1, Fall 1979, p. 2. https://skepticalinquirer.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2019/03/Issue-01-1.pdf [^62]: Brief of Respondent CBS Inc. in Opposition, Fairness in Media v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 88-388 (October 3, 1988), pp. 1-3, 7-8 (No. 87-1217 in the D.C. Circuit; per curiam affirmance of June 8, 1988; certiorari denied October 11, 1988). https://archive.org/details/micro_IA40385002_0072 [^63]: Brief for appellants, Citizens TV Protest Committee and Clarksburg Publishing Company v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 18,738 (D.C. Cir. 1964), statement of questions presented and statement of facts. https://archive.org/details/dc_circ_1964_18738_citizens_tv_protest_comm_et_al_v_fed_comm_commn [^64]: Geller v. Randi, 40 F.3d 1300 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 9, 1994) (Wald, Sentelle and Rogers, JJ.; Sentelle, J., for the court), reciting the January 15, 1992 motions, Geller's failure to respond, and the affirmance of the Rule 11 sanction. https://cite.case.law/f3d/40/1300/ [^65]: Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. June 22, 1993) (Silberman, Buckley and Williams, JJ.; Silberman, J., for the court; Buckley, J., concurring in the judgment), on the task force composition, 3 U.S.C. 105(e), and the remand as to the working group. https://cite.case.law/f2d/997/898/ [^66]: In re Cheney, 334 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. July 8, 2003) (Edwards, Randolph and Tatel, JJ.), on the mandamus petition against the discovery order and the Judicial Watch complaint against the National Energy Policy Development Group. https://cite.case.law/f3d/334/1096/ [^67]: Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (2004), decided June 24, 2004, vacating the judgment of the court of appeals and remanding. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/542/367 [^68]: Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 2005) (Sentelle, Henderson and Rogers, JJ.), reciting the original complaint of September 10, 2001, the amended complaint of November 11, 2002, the renewed motion to dismiss of December 12, 2002 and the March 30, 2004 dismissal, and affirming on political question grounds. https://cite.case.law/f3d/412/190/ [^69]: United States v. Pollard, 959 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 20, 1992) (No. 90-3276, argued Sept. 10, 1991; R.B. Ginsburg, Silberman and Williams, JJ.; Silberman, J., for the court; Williams, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). https://cite.case.law/f2d/959/1011/ [^70]: United States v. Pollard, 416 F.3d 48 (D.C. Cir. July 22, 2005) (No. 01-3103; Sentelle, Henderson and Rogers, JJ.; Sentelle, J., for the court; Rogers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). https://cite.case.law/f3d/416/48/ [^71]: McFarlane v. Esquire Magazine, 74 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 30, 1996) (Williams, Ginsburg and Randolph, JJ.), affirming the rulings on personal jurisdiction over Craig Unger, on dismissal rather than transfer and on actual malice, and quoting the article's passage on the INSLAW affidavit and the court's findings on it. https://cite.case.law/f3d/74/1296/ [^72]: McFarlane v. Sheridan Square Press, Inc., 91 F.3d 1501 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 16, 1996) (No. 95-7201; Williams, Ginsburg and Rogers, JJ.; Ginsburg, J., for the court). https://cite.case.law/f3d/91/1501/ [^73]: United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 2001) (en banc) (per curiam), affirming in part and reversing in part. https://cite.case.law/f3d/253/34/ [^74]: New Mexico v. Musk, No. 25-cv-429 (D.D.C.), opinion of June 10, 2025, ECF 103, reciting the March 12, 2025 discovery order (ECF 61), the petition in In re Musk, No. 25-5072 (D.C. Cir. filed March 18, 2025), the circuit's order of March 26, 2025 staying that order pending further order, and the district court's minute order of the same date. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00429/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00429-1.pdf [^75]: U.S. DOGE Service v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 25-1103, Supreme Court of the United States, docket (petition filed March 18, 2026; lower court No. 25-5130, decision July 14, 2025, rehearing denied December 18, 2025). https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1103.html [^76]: Associated Press v. Budowich, No. 25-5109 (D.C. Cir. June 6, 2025) (order granting in part the motion for stay pending appeal, with the statement of Rao, J., joined by Katsas, J., and the statement of Pillard, J., who would deny the motion). https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/06/25-5109LDSN3.pdf [^77]: Associated Press v. Budowich, No. 25-5109 (D.C. Cir. July 22, 2025) (order denying the motion for en banc reconsideration and vacatur). https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/07/25-5109LDEN.pdf [^78]: Finance Magnates, "CFTC Folds Its Hand in Election Betting Showdown with Kalshi," May 5, 2025 (voluntary dismissal of No. 24-5205 after a 3 to 0 commission vote, each party bearing its own costs). https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/cftc-folds-its-hand-in-election-betting-showdown-with-kalshi ; Protos, "The revolving door for lawyers between Kalshi and DOJ" (Yaakov Roth argued the appeal for Kalshi in January 2025). https://protos.com/the-revolving-door-for-lawyers-between-kalshi-and-doj/ [^79]: United States v. Littlejohn, No. 24-3019 (D.C. Cir. July 17, 2026) (argued November 4, 2025; opinion of Walker, J., joined by Rao, J., and Rogers, S.J.). https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/07/24-3019-2183720.pdf --- *The Info Web has an MCP server for agents at https://theinfoweb.org/mcp (streamable HTTP, no auth): search by meaning, exact text, source or date, and follow typed, footnoted connections. Setup and the same tools over GET: https://theinfoweb.org/llms.txt*