FACA was created to assess the need for the 'numerous committees, boards, commissions, councils, and similar which have been established to advise officers and agencies in the executive branch of the Federal Government.' It was to ensure that new advisory committees be established only when essential, and that their number be minimized; that they be terminated when they have outlived their usefulness; that their creation, operation, and duration be subject to uniform standards and procedures; that Congress and the public remain apprised of their existence, activities, and cost; and that their work be exclusively advisory in nature. Washington Legal Foundation (P) filed suit against the Justice Department (D) after the ABA Committee refused P's request for the names of potential nominees it was considering and for its reports and minutes of its meetings. P sued under the FACA, which defines an 'advisory committee' as any group 'established or utilized' by the President or an agency to give advice on public questions, and requires a covered group to file a charter, afford notice of its meetings, open those meetings to the public, and make its minutes, records, and reports available to the public. P contends that the ABA Committee must file a charter, afford notice of its meetings, open those meetings to the public, and make its minutes, records, and reports available for public inspection and copying. D moved to dismiss, arguing that the ABA Committee did not fall within FACA's definition of 'advisory committee' and that, if it did, FACA would violate the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. The court dismissed the action in that the FACA cannot be applied to the ABA Committee because it would violate the express separation of nomination and consent powers set forth in Article II of the Constitution.