In a 2-1 ruling last Tuesday, a federal appeals court rejected Vice President Dick Cheney’s request to keep documents about his energy task force secret. The decision upholds a lower court ruling that ordered the limited release of documents in a discovery process. Justice Department lawyers defending Cheney then approached the D.C. Court of Appeals to halt that order. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts ruling, stating that current laws would safeguard genuinely privileged information. Judge David S. Tatel drew on two rulings under President Clinton to determine the administration had not provided evidence that irreparable harm would occur if documents were released, as the lower court ruled. Judge Tatel was an appointee under Clinton. The other vote against Cheney came from Judge Harry T. Edwards, a Carter appointee. The dissenting opinion came from a President George H. W. Bush appointee, Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Judicial Watch, a conservative group, brought the initial case before the court in 2001. Sierra Club also filed suit shortly after, and the two cases were consolidated and brought before the U.S. District Court in Washington. The plaintiffs argued that the energy task force was comprised of, not only government employees, but also industry figures and should then be subject to public scrutiny. The White House argued that only government employees were part of the task force and any proceedings should remain secret. The administration has stated that it believes any court decision to release the information would represent an overstep of the court system’s constitutional authority. However, that seems like an overstatement of the facts. While it may be true that the courts have heard a case about the release of documents from the administration, it falls inline with the system of checks and balances set up in the constitution. This court decision is an important step in slowing the administration’s shift towards increased secrecy and reduced accountability. The fact that the administration requires intercession by the courts to allow access to information does not bode well for other controversial policies of secrecy that have recently been passed. The result of this case may influence how broadly the administration tried to apply those policies. In next steps, the Justice Department could request the full panel of the appeals court hear the case, or even bring it before the Supreme Court. The Sierra club believes the government will take all steps available to drag out the case.