SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court cast doubt yesterday on the enforceability of one of the key sunshine laws passed in the Watergate era to allow public access to boards that provide advice to the federal government.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that members of the public are not entitled to bring suits under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The decision came in the case of a conservative attorney who objected to closed meetings held by panels considering possible nominees for district court judgeships in California.

“Our examination of the text and structure of FACA reveals nothing to indicate Congress intended a private remedy. FACA contains no express private right of action, nor does it include any provision for judicial review,” wrote Judge David Thompson.

Advocates of open access sought to minimize the impact of the decision. They noted that, in a footnote, the court left open the possibility that the access law could be enforced through two other mechanisms, the Administrative Procedure Act and a statute that provides for mandamus, an order compelling government officials to comply with the law.

A Los Angeles lawyer, Patrick Manshardt, brought the legal challenge against an unusual group of committees set up in 2001 to review potential judicial nominees. The four six-member panels were created by Senators Boxer and Feinstein, along with a Los Angeles investor, Gerald Parsky, according to a press release from Ms. Feinstein’s office. Mr. Parsky, a Republican, is a loyal donor to and close friend of President Bush.

While the two senators, both Democrats, name some members of the panels, others are appointed by Mr. Parsky. Under the arrangement, only candidates who get support from panel members of both parties can have their names forwarded to Mr. Bush for consideration.

“It seems to me to make very little sense,” Mr. Manshardt said in an interview yesterday. “The president has offered a huge seat at the table to Democrats who won’t give him the time of day on his circuit nominations. It seems like you’re getting your pocket picked, or unilateral disarmament,” he said. Mr. Bush has only nominated judges approved by the panels since they were created, the lawyer said.

Mr. Manshardt said attorneys for the panels tried to argue both that the process did not involve the White House and that opening it to the public would impinge on Mr. Bush’s constitutional right to choose nominees. The attorney said he believes the panels were devised by one of Mr. Bush’s top White House aides, Karl Rove.

“It’s my understanding Parsky’s joined at the hip with Karl Rove,” Mr. Manshardt said. “I’d imagine Karl Rove told him to do it.”

Mr. Parksy declined to comment on the court’s ruling, but defended the committee system. “I’ve been honored to be asked by the president to be involved in this kind of an issue and I’ve felt the work with Senators Feinstein and Boxer has resulted in something very positive for California,” Mr. Parsky said in an interview.

The law under which Mr. Manshardt brought suit, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, has recently been used to demand access to the records of Vice President Cheney’s task force on energy policy. The statute was also used in the 1990s to challenge the operation of the health care reform task force that Senator Clinton ran while she was first lady.

The case involving Mr. Cheney went to the Supreme Court last year and is now before the full bench of the main federal appeals court in Washington. One issue that court is considering is how, if at all, the law can be enforced against officials like Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush.

“The government has tried to raise these procedural hurdles to prevent the statute from being applied,” said an attorney seeking access to the records of the energy task force, Sanjay Narayan of the Sierra Club. “I think the statute deserves to be enforced.”

Mr. Narayan said the 9th Circuit ruling should not undermine his case, but he added that the advisory committee law will become null if private lawsuits are not permitted.

“The Department of Justice is never going to enforce this statute. They’re just not,” he said. “They’ve devoted most of their time to getting the statute held unconstitutional and inapplicable.”

The 9th Circuit’s ruling was based in large part on a Supreme Court opinion from 2001, which said courts should not allow private lawsuits under a law unless Congress explicitly authorized them.

The author of yesterday’s ruling, Judge Thompson, was appointed by President Reagan. Judges John Noonan Jr., a Reagan appointee, and Michael Hawkins, a Clinton appointee, joined in the decision.

The district court judge who handled the case, Florence-Marie Cooper of Los Angeles, dismissed it for a different reason. She said it presented political questions that are not the proper province of the judiciary.

Members of the panels also consider candidates to be the chief federal prosecutor in each of California’s four districts. Mr. Manshardt said he learned of the system after being invited to apply for one of the prosecutor posts. He did not get the job.