Precedential (Not Presidential) Value

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge Friedrich)  denied vacatur of its earlier orders in a FOIA action brought by Heritage Foundation against DOJ 

Plaintiffs the Heritage Foundation and one of its officers Mike Howell brought this action against the U.S. Department of Justice seeking documents related to the investigation of Robert Hunter Biden, the son of the President of the United States Joseph R. Biden. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction “enjoining Defendant the U.S. Department of Justice . . . from unlawfully impeding Plaintiffs’ expedited access to records under the Freedom of Information Act.” Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 1, Dkt. 6. On July 19, 2023, the Court denied this motion. Dkt. 18. The plaintiffs then moved for an injunction pending appeal, and on July 20, 2023, the Court denied this motion. Dkt. 21. The plaintiffs appealed both denials, but on September 1, 2023, they moved before the D.C. Circuit to dismiss their consolidated appeals as moot and to vacate this Court’s July 19, 2023 and July 20, 2023 orders. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeals as moot but “remanded to the district court with instructions to consider whether vacatur of the district court’s orders . . . is warranted.” Order at 1, Heritage Found. v. DOJ, No. 23-5171 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023). For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that vacatur is not warranted.

The orders have precedential value

Here, the Court’s previous decisions carry general precedential value. Even assuming the subject matter is ordinary, “all parties involved” appear to “agree” that the plaintiffs seek documents “carr[ying] exceptional importance” to the nation. Order of July 19, 2023 at 10. The Court’s decisions concerning such important matters should “not[] be cavalierly discarded” because they reflect an “accurate historical record” of “a dispute and [that] someone was declared the winner.” I.A. v. Garland, No. 20-5271, 2022 WL 696459, at *2 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 24, 2022) (Jackson, J., concurring). In short, the plaintiffs are correct that the precedential value of the Court’s orders does not “alone render[] vacatur inappropriate,” but this is but one of several factors weighing against vacatur. Am. Fam. Life Assur. Co. of Columbus, 129 F.3d at 631.

(Mike Frisch)