January 21, 2017

President Trump established a Council of infrastructure advisers to guide his administration’s infrastructure policy.

The Council was to be led by LeFrak and Roth, and also included two private equity executives, Joshua Harris and William E. Ford. The government did not formally announce the council by Executive Order or in the Federal Register, but the Council immediately began work.

July 19, 2017

creation of the Presidential Advisory Council on Infrastructure (EO 13805).

This was the first time the government attempted to formalize the Council’s work.

July 25, 2017

We filed suit with Food & Water Watch to enforce the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

We argued that the Council’s work had begun long before EO 13805, and that all that work prior to the order should have been subject to FACA’s requirements. Further, we sought to invalidate any work the Council had done in violation of FACA.

August 17, 2017

Following the events in Charlottesville, VA, the White House announced the President would not move forward with the Infrastructure Council.

Then, on September 29, 2017, President Trump revoked EO 13805.

November 20, 2017

We filed an amended complaint.

We bolstered our arguments that the Council had been operating illegally, and continued to ask the court to vacate illegal actions by the Council and order the government to provide documentation of the Council’s work, as is required by FACA.

January 17, 2018

The government moved to dismiss our case.

The government argued that our client had not been harmed by the Council’s work, that the Council had not operated as an advisory committee prior to EO 13805, and that our case should be considered moot after the disbandment of the Council in August 2017.

February 14, 2018

We opposed the government’s motion to dismiss.

We argued that the Council’s work should have been subject to FACA, and we asked the Court to grant discovery into the work of the Council before dismissing the case.

June 7, 2018

After briefing and oral argument, the Court ordered the Government to respond to a set of Interrogatories about the scope and nature of the Council’s work.

It is rare for courts to grant plaintiffs what is called “jurisdictional discovery” against the government, and the Court did so here because of the confusing and inconsistent factual assertions by the government about the nature of the Council’s work.

July 23, 2018

The government responded to the Interrogatories.

The government admitted that members of the Council had met at least thirteen times to discuss infrastructure, but gave scant detail about the substance of those meetings.

August 31, 2018

We opposed the government’s motion to dismiss, and moved to compel further discovery.

In our view, the government’s interrogatory responses clearly show the work of an advisory council, and the Court should open its work up for the public to see.

September 28, 2018

The government filed its reply to our opposition to their motion to dismiss, and an opposition to our motion to compel.

December 10, 2018

The Court dismissed our lawsuit.

Although the Court's decision is disappointing, our lawsuit succeeded in bringing to light the more than a dozen "preliminary" meetings held by the Council purportedly in preparation for its launch.