Schilling v. U.S. House of Representatives

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking to compel, under the common law right of access, the disclosure of emails and recordings related to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s investigation of energy companies and their business practices and research on fossil fuels. The emails and recordings were “preparatory materials for a committee hearing” on climate change and therefore were “informal preliminary steps in a congressional investigation, not the recording of an ‘official … decision.’” The court held that sovereign immunity barred the claim.

The federal district court for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit seeking to compel, under the common law right of access, the disclosure of emails and recordings related to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s investigation of energy companies and their business practices and research on fossil fuels. The court concluded that the request sought records “directly related” to preparation for hearings on climate legislation, that compelling disclosure would impede Congress’s investigatory function, and that the Speech or Debate Clause therefore prohibited the plaintiff’s inquiry.

A radio host filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the District of Columbia against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Clerk and Chief Administrative Office of the U.S. House of Representatives alleging that they violated his common law right of access to public records by failing to release records related to the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s investigation of what the Committee <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/oversight-committee-launches-investigation-of-fossil-fuel-industry">referred</a> to as the “reported role of the fossil fuel industry in a long-running, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.” The plaintiff alleged that media reports said the investigation work was being conducted by consultants paid by private donors in violation of statute and House Rules. He alleged that he had requested records related to individuals who allegedly had been identified as providing assistance to the investigation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had not produced requested records or acknowledged his requests and sought both declaratory and mandamus or injunctive relief.