## Facts

- Common Cause, a public-interest organization, and an individual plaintiff challenged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decisions to close meetings addressing the agency’s budget proposals.
- The challenges arose under the Government in the Sunshine Act, which generally requires multi-member federal agencies to conduct meetings openly unless a statutory exemption applies.
- The disputed closures included NRC budget meetings held on July 25, 1980 and October 15, 1980.
- In the district court, plaintiffs sought declarations that the closures violated the Sunshine Act and requested disclosure of transcripts from the closed meetings.
- The district court held that certain budget meetings were unlawfully closed, ordered release of meeting transcripts, and entered an injunction directing the NRC to hold “some” future meetings in public.
- After concluding the NRC violated that injunction, the district court held the NRC in contempt.
- The NRC appealed the transcript-disclosure rulings and the injunction and contempt orders.

## Issues

1. Whether the Government in the Sunshine Act permits a categorical (blanket) exemption allowing an agency to close budget deliberation meetings as a class.
2. Whether the NRC met its burden to justify closure of the July 25, 1980 and October 15, 1980 meetings and continued withholding of their transcripts under specific Sunshine Act exemptions.
3. Whether the district court’s injunction regulating future NRC meeting practices satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)’s specificity requirement, and whether the contempt order could stand.

## Decision

- The court held the Sunshine Act contains no blanket exemption for meetings at any stage of the budget-preparation process.
- The court concluded the NRC did not carry its burden on this record to show that the July 25, 1980 and October 15, 1980 meetings were lawfully closed or that their transcripts could remain withheld.
- The court ordered the NRC to release the transcripts of those meetings to the public.
- The court vacated the district court’s July 2, 1981 injunction because it lacked the specificity required by Rule 65(d).
- The court also vacated the contempt order because it was based on an invalid, insufficiently specific injunction.

## Legal Principles

- The Government in the Sunshine Act establishes openness as the default for meetings of covered multi-member agencies; exemptions are limited and must be applied narrowly.
- The Sunshine Act does not create a categorical exemption for budget deliberations; whether an exemption applies must be determined based on the facts of each meeting and, when necessary, specific portions of discussions.
- The agency bears the burden to justify closure and withholding of records by making a concrete, particularized showing that identified material falls within a statutory exemption; generalized assertions are insufficient.
- Courts may order disclosure of meeting transcripts when the agency fails to justify closure or continued withholding under the Sunshine Act.
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), an injunction must describe in reasonable detail the acts required or restrained; vague, open-ended directives cannot support contempt sanctions.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit rejected any categorical Sunshine Act exemption for budget meetings, required disclosure of transcripts where the NRC failed to justify closure with meeting-specific proof, and vacated prospective injunctive and contempt relief because the injunction did not state the NRC’s obligations with the clarity Rule 65(d) demands.


Common Cause v. Nuclear Regul. Comm'n, 674 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1982)