Changes

A total of 308 reported decisions -- 300 of which are in federal rather than state court -- discussed FACA as of May 20, 2022.  Only two [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decisions have addressed FACA:  ''Public Citizen v. United States Dep't of Justice'', 491 U.S. 440 (1989) (FACA not apply to ABA committee advising on nominations by the president to the federal judiciary) and ''Cheney v. United States Dist. Court'', 542 U.S. 367, 385 (2004) (even if "FACA's statutory objectives would be to some extent frustrated, it does not follow that a court's Article III authority or Congress' central Article I powers would be impaired").  A total of 73 of the FACA decisions have been by a federal court of appeals, 46 of which have been by the [[D.C. Circuit]].

A total of 308 reported decisions -- 300 of which are in federal rather than state court -- discussed FACA as of May 20, 2022.  Only two [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decisions have addressed FACA:  ''Public Citizen v. United States Dep't of Justice'', 491 U.S. 440 (1989) (FACA not apply to ABA committee advising on nominations by the president to the federal judiciary) and ''Cheney v. United States Dist. Court'', 542 U.S. 367, 385 (2004) (even if "FACA's statutory objectives would be to some extent frustrated, it does not follow that a court's Article III authority or Congress' central Article I powers would be impaired").  A total of 73 of the FACA decisions have been by a federal court of appeals, 46 of which have been by the [[D.C. Circuit]].

== Fair balance and no inappropriate influence ==

== "fairly balanced" and no inappropriate influence ==

Balance is a FACA requirement, in addition to transparency requirements of open meetings and published minutes:

Balance is a FACA requirement, in addition to transparency requirements of open meetings and published minutes:

In that [[First Circuit]] decision, Appellants asserted that an EPA "directive violates FACA's fair balance provision (Count III); the directive violates FACA's inappropriate influence provision (Count IV); and the EPA offered no rational explanation for adopting the directive, especially given that it changed prior policy (Count I)."  ''Id.'' at 17.

In that [[First Circuit]] decision, Appellants asserted that an EPA "directive violates FACA's fair balance provision (Count III); the directive violates FACA's inappropriate influence provision (Count IV); and the EPA offered no rational explanation for adopting the directive, especially given that it changed prior policy (Count I)."  ''Id.'' at 17.

== Challenging FACA violations using the APA ==

== Challenging FACA violations using the APA ==