Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

E16775

United States Supreme Court case civil discovery case federal courts case separation of powers case

Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court limited judicial intrusion into the executive branch’s internal deliberations, particularly regarding Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force records.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

AI illustration

All labels observed (5)

Label	Occurrences
Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia canonical	2
Sierra Club v. Cheney	2
Judicial Watch v. National Energy Policy Development Group	1
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Energy Policy Development Group	1
Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T132245 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Context triple: [United States v. Nixon, citedBy, Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia]

A. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
B. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
C. Clinton v. Jones
Clinton v. Jones is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a sitting president is not immune from civil litigation for unofficial acts committed before taking office.
D. Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
E. Trump v. Vance
Trump v. Vance is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a sitting president is not absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas, allowing a New York grand jury to obtain Donald Trump’s financial records.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Target entity description: Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court limited judicial intrusion into the executive branch’s internal deliberations, particularly regarding Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force records.

A. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
B. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
C. Clinton v. Jones
Clinton v. Jones is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a sitting president is not immune from civil litigation for unofficial acts committed before taking office.
D. Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
E. Trump v. Vance
Trump v. Vance is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a sitting president is not absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas, allowing a New York grand jury to obtain Donald Trump’s financial records.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (49)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ civil discovery case ⓘ federal courts case ⓘ separation of powers case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	administrative law ⓘ civil procedure ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ
arguedDate	2003-04-27 ⓘ
branchImpacted	executive branch of the United States government ⓘ linked to: executive branch of the United States
citation	542 U.S. 367 ⓘ
concerns	Vice President’s National Energy Policy Development Group ⓘ access to records of the Vice President’s energy task force ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Antonin Scalia ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
country	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	2004-06-24 ⓘ
disposition	Vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. ⓘ
dissentBy	David H. Souter ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
fullName	Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia ⓘ linked to: Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
holding	The Supreme Court held that courts must consider separation of powers principles before allowing broad discovery into the executive branch’s internal deliberations. ⓘ The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals applied too demanding a standard in denying mandamus relief and failed to properly consider separation of powers concerns in evaluating discovery orders directed at the Vice President and other executive officials. ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
jurisdiction	federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
legalIssue	availability of mandamus to limit discovery ⓘ executive privilege and confidentiality of executive deliberations ⓘ scope of civil discovery against the executive branch ⓘ separation of powers ⓘ
lowerCourt	United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ⓘ United States District Court for the District of Columbia ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ
page	367 ⓘ
petitioner	Office of the Vice President of the United States ⓘ Richard B. Cheney ⓘ linked to: Dick Cheney
relatedConcept	civil discovery ⓘ executive privilege ⓘ mandamus ⓘ separation of powers doctrine ⓘ
relatedStatute	Federal Advisory Committee Act ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
respondent	United States District Court for the District of Columbia ⓘ
volume	542 ⓘ
year	2004 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (7)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

United States v. Nixon → citedBy → Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ⓘ

Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia → fullName → Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia ⓘ