Vietnam Veterans of America v. Central Intelligence Agency
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWallace, Circuit Judge
I agree that the text of AR 70-25 unequivocally commands the Army to provide certain newly acquired information to all former research volunteers when that information becomes available. Because the Army has “unlawfully withheld” agency action by denying that it owes this duty to certain past volunteers, I join the majority in affirming the district court’s judgment and injunction compelling the Army to comply with AR 70-25’s clear regulatory mandate. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). I write separately in concurrence on this point only because I do not join the majority’s analysis of regulatory history…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness AllianceSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Gardner v. United States Bureau of Land ManagementCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Our Children's Earth Foundation v. United States Environmental Protection AgencyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Rivas v. NapolitanoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Wildearth Guardians v. Gina McCarthyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.