Logourl black
From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...

Schwartz v. United States Department of Justice

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
435 F. Supp. 1203 (1977)


Facts

Schwartz (plaintiff) requested several documents related to the investigation of Peter Schlam from Peter Rodino (defendant), the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives. After Rodino refused to make the disclosure, Schwartz sued Rodino to gain access to the documents, invoking the common law right of access to public records. Schwartz also sued the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Rodino moved to dismiss the action, arguing that Congress was not bound by the common law rule that allows citizens to access certain public records.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Pratt, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 252,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.