Cheney v. United States District Court for the Distr — Stevens, J…

Summary

Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment, reasoning that broad discovery is inappropriate when it prejudges the merits of a mandamus claim. He emphasized that mandamus requires a clear nondiscretionary duty and that discovery should be tailored to show entitlement. He joined the Court's judgment vacating and remanding the discovery order. Justice Ginsburg dissented, arguing the Government never asked to narrow discovery so mandamus on that ground was premature. Justice Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part, contending respondents failed to meet the mandamus burden in the District Court.