Cheney v. United State — Thomas, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Thomas, concurring in part and dissenting in part, argues that respondents failed to meet the high burden required for mandamus relief regarding FACA discovery orders against the Vice President. He contends that broad discovery into the inner workings of the National Energy Policy Development Group threatens separation of powers and that a clear right to relief was not established. The Court (per referenced opinions) vacated the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded for consideration of mandamus, while Justice Ginsburg, dissenting, would affirm the Court of Appeals to allow the District Court to narrow discovery, and Justice Stevens, concurring, agreed to vacate the discovery order as prejudging the merits of the FACA claim.