Court opinions issued Mar. 31, 2026

Tobias v. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) — granting plaintiff's fee petition where agency produced no documents on any of nine requests prior to suit; finding eligibility under catalyst theory based on sudden post-filing acceleration after months of inaction and missed self-imposed deadlines; holding all four entitlement factors favored plaintiff because requests served public interest, plaintiff had non-commercial journalistic motivations, and agency lacked colorable basis for delay; awarding full lodestar with only narrow reductions for clerical tasks and certain post-resolution billing; permitting recovery for unsuccessful fee settlement negotiations given government's “ill-advised” litigation posture; and allowing full fees-on-fees recovery, including over $21,000 for reply briefing alone, where the inflated fees-on-fees costs were attributable to defendants' 45-page opposition raising mostly meritless arguments that caused the fee dispute “to spiral into a second major litigation.”

Louise Trauma Ctr. LLC v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — denying fee petition in its entirety based on counsel's troubling track record of billing deficiencies across multiple recent cases in same district; an apparently inflated fee request where counsel valued fees at $50,000 in settlement discussions but sought more than twice that amount less than two weeks later; and pervasive deficiencies in the billing records themselves, including entries shifted to different dates, time increased on amended records, and a billing entry described only as "reasonable number of hours," leaving the court with "little confidence as to the reliability of counsel's billing records or the overall reasonableness of counsel's claimed fees."

Am. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Dep’t of Agric. (D.D.C.) — granting in part and denying in part the government’s motion to dismiss in a case “asserting 42 individual” FOIA claims about the processing separate and discreet requests, as well as “one policy or practice claim”; concluding the requester “plausibly alleged a policy or practice claim” as to “two alleged deficiencies,” namely, the agency’s “failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s appeals” and “to make prompt determinations and disclosures of responsive records”; agreeing with the government that the requester’s claim fails under Rule 12(b)(6) insofar as it alleges the agency “regularly and repeatedly” fails to provide estimated dates of completion or provide appeal rights in its determination letters; rejecting the government’s proposal to dismiss or sever the first 42 counts, as “they form the basis of the policy or practice claim.”

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (D.D.C.) — denying government’s motion to dismiss FOIA policy-or-practice claim arising from closure of CDC's FOIA office and rerouting of all requests to a different HHS division under DOGE workforce reduction order; finding plaintiff stated a claim based on plausible allegations of widespread processing delays, failure to maintain reading-room disclosures, and stonewalling of requesters across multiple organizations; denying without prejudice both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on the FOIA claim because the record was mixed, stale, and incomplete, and agency’s conduct had not yet been shown to be "so delinquent or recalcitrant" as to warrant injunctive relief beyond an ordinary production order; expressing skepticism of government’s exceptional-circumstances defense given that the delays were self-inflicted, which "calls to mind the man sentenced to death for killing his parents, who pleads for mercy on the ground that he is an orphan"; and dismissing APA claim because FOIA provided an adequate alternative remedy.

White v. Dep’t of Agric. (E.D. Okla.) — following a bench trial, entering judgment for the agency; holding that the agency conducted an adequate search for records, even though “no search terms were utilized to identify the responsive documents,” give the “nature of Plaintiff’s request, the USDA’s record-keeping practices, and the type of information stored on the [Multi-Family Information System] and [Automatic Multi-Family Accounting System]” databases; concluding, further, that the requester was not entitled to attorney’s fees.

Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.

Court opinions issued Mar. 30, 2026

Leopold v. Cent. Intelligence Agency (D.D.C.) — in a case concerning records of how CIA investigates personnel misconduct, concluding that the agency was largely justified in withholding records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E); of note, finding that a statutory amendment to the CIA Act was applicable retroactively and allowed the agency to broadly protect its internal operations; further, declining to adopt the Eighth Circuit’s heightened standard, which would have required showing an “actual expectation of harm” from the disclosure of records protected under Exemption 7(E), but noting that the agency met that stricter test regardless.

Long v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t (D.D.C.) — denying the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the adequacy of the agency’s search; rejecting the requester’s argument that the agency was obliged to extract the requested information from underlying Enforcement Integrated Database and Integrated Decision Support Database dictionaries, rather than a separate “online data dictionary repository know[] as Matrix,” which consists of content uploaded from the underlying databases’ source code; noting that the agency’s declarant establishes that “Matrix is ‘the current authoritative place for technical documents, such as data dictionaries,’” and the agency “cannot simply query the databases themselves for the data dictionaries as . . . requested,” even if this results in an “imperfect” search; accepting the requester’s other objections about the “omission” of certain specific subsets of information, such as "an “‘ENFORCE’ table subset” and “plain-English translations of codes”; further concluding that the agency failed to “explain its withholding of technical database information” based on exemptions invoked in concurrent litigation.

Informed Consent Action Network v. Health Res. & Servs. Admin. (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s motion for summary judgment; holding that, in a case involving a request for the names of “every employee” of a certain office within the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency properly “the names of the Director and Deputy Director” while also withholding “the names of the 35 employees that worked underneath them” under Exemption 6; noting that “employees in the office have received harassing and threatening emails, voicemails, and text messages,” and therefore have substantial privacy interests at stake, and the requester has not shown that the “public’s interest in knowing the names” of lower level employees would do anything but add “minimal incremental value” to understanding of how the agency “is adjudicating claims for COVID-19 related injuries” or otherwise “spending taxpayer money”; similarly questioning the strength of the asserted public interest in knowing whether the employees’ identities would implicate their qualifications or potential conflicts of interest.

Kleinert v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D.D.C.) — denying the requester’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs; concluded the requester was not “eligible” since “[t]he record reflects that the disclosure of the . . . [r]ecords” at issue “resulted from ‘delayed administrative processing,’ not a chance in position prompted by Plaintiff’s lawsuit”; noting also that “[w]hile the agency’s two-year delay in releasing” documents “was undoubtedly the product of repeated mistakes, the record nonetheless shows a good-faith effort to respond.”

Ctr. for Immigration Studies v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (D.D.C.) — denying the government’s motion for summary judgment and granting in part the requester’s cross-motion; holding, in relevant part, that the requester reasonably described the records sought, and the agency’s failure to undertake a search was improper, but reserving judgment on the agency’s claim that the actual search for and processing of potentially responsive records would either be unreasonably burdensome or require the creation or new records; rejecting the agency’s argument that a request for “‘all records sufficient show any and or all the . . . information’ responsive to four distinct inquiries relating to supporters of CHNV parole applicants” is “analogous to [a request] seeking ‘any and all documents and records’ that ‘relate’ to a given subject”; holding further that, insofar as the agency wished to defend any “no responsive records” determination on a subpart of the request at issue, its briefing and declaration were factually “insufficient”; finally, noting the declaration is also insufficient, in part, because it does not explain why certain component offices were “the ones most likely to contain responsive records,” or whether any other offices were locations “where record were reasonably likely to be found.”

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — ruling that plaintiff’s challenge to DOJ’s categorical withholding of records about former Congressman Matt Gaetz on privacy grounds was moot because DOJ began processing and producing records after briefing commenced; further ruling, in most relevant part, that plaintiff failed to show that DOJ maintained a broad, unlawful policy of issuing Glomar responses to requests about third-party investigations, but noting potentially erroneous practices of the Criminal Division and FBI that could support narrower policy-or-practice claims and denying both parties’ summary judgment motions on this count.

Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.

Jobs, jobs, jobs: A fearsome foursome

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Agriculture, multiple locations, GS 11, closes 4/13/26 (non-public).

Att’y-Adviser, Dep’t of State, GS 12-13, Wash, DC, closes 4/17/26 (public).

Att’y-Adviser, Dep’t of State, GS 14-15, Wash., DC, closes 4/17/26 (public).

Gen. Att’y, Dep’t of Homeland Sec./ICE, GS 11-15, Wash., DC, closes 4/21/26 (public).

FOIA News: FOIA might jeopardize homeland security, researcher warns

Research Highlights Freedom of Information Act Risks in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

By Matt Seldon, Homeland Security Today, Apr. 6, 2026

A graduate research project is raising questions about how longstanding transparency laws may be creating unintended risks for homeland security in the digital age.

In her thesis, Leaving the FOIA Window Open: Implications for U.S. Homeland Security in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, at the Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS), Melanie Simmons, a statistician at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), examines how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) interacts with modern data and AI capabilities.

Originally designed for a paper-based environment, FOIA now operates in a landscape where large volumes of digital data can be released, aggregated, and analyzed at scale. Simmons’ research highlights how artificial intelligence can combine seemingly unrelated data points from multiple disclosures to reveal sensitive information—a concept known as the “Mosaic Theory.”

The study outlines how actors can leverage FOIA’s “blind requester” principle, which does not require individuals to disclose their intent, to submit large or strategic requests. When combined over time, these datasets can potentially be used to reconstruct law enforcement-sensitive information or identify operational patterns.

Read more here.

FOIA News: AI joins the records battle

A new website called FOIA Warfare offers an artificial intelligence–based tool to generate Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests, track deadlines, and draft administrative appeals. The service describes itself as a document preparation and workflow platform and emphasizes that it focuses on automated drafting and case management rather than submitting requests or publishing records on behalf of users.

FOIA News: Senior FOIA officer resigns from DOJ’s Civil Rights Division

As DOJ prepares to share state voter data with DHS, a key privacy officer resigns

By Jude Joffe-Block, NPR, Apr. 3, 2026

As Justice Department officials are working to acquire sensitive voter registration data from states and have recently disclosed a plan to share it with the Department of Homeland Security, a key privacy officer in DOJ's division tasked with enforcing civil and voting rights laws has resigned.

Kilian Kagle was the chief FOIA officer and senior component official for privacy for DOJ's Civil Rights Division before leaving his post in recent days. His resignation has not been previously reported.

Read more here.

Jobs, jobs, jobs: 7 careers for 7 candidates

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs/VHA, GS 11-12, Martinsburg, WV, closes 4/13/26 (closes 4/6/26).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs/VHA, GS 12, multiple locations, closes 4/8/26 (non-public).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs/VHA, GS 9, Wilkes Barre, PA, closes 4/13/26 (internal agency).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Justice/OIG, GS 12-13, Wash., DC, closes 4/14/26 (non-public).

Ass’t Gen. Counsel, Dep’t of Justice/BOP, GS 12-15, Wash., DC, closes 4/17/26 (public).

Att’y-Adviser, Dep’t of Justice/OIP, GS 12-14, Wash., DC, closes 4/20/26 (public).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Justice/BOP, GS 12, multiple locations, closes 4/22/26 (non-public).

Court opinions issued Mar. 27, 2026

Evans Law PLLC v. DOJ (D. Colo.) -- finding that: (1) DOJ’s search for records about Hunter Biden and James Biden’s foreign contacts adequate, noting it reasonably covered the relevant offices and records as of the search date and wasn’t required to seek documents created later in the Office of Special Counsel; (2) DOJ properly withheld portions of emails and an internal memorandum under Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), the Bank Secrecy Act, the National Security Act, and the Internal Revenue Code; (3) DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege to withhold emails and the memo, but charts were not covered because they were prepared for presidential transition purposes, not in anticipation of litigation; and (4) DOJ properly relied on Exemptions 7(A), 7(C), and 7(E) to withhold records and its withholdings met the foreseeable harm standard “absent any argument to the the contrary” from plaintiffs.

Protect the Pub.’s Trust v. NLRB (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment and following in camera review, ruling that NLRB properly withheld portions of an ethics memo under Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege, as those sections were drafted in anticipation of litigation concerning the Board’s Joint Employer Rule.

Chelmowski v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that EPA’s searches for plaintiff’s two “FOIA-on-FOIA” requests were only partially adequate, because they focused on individual employees’ email accounts without fully explaining why other records or repositories were not searched; further, EPA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process and attorney-client privileges) and Exemption 6, and the court did not require a separate finding of foreseeable harm.

Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.

FOIA News: Law Review note on A-File FOIA litigation

A recent Harvard Law Review note looks at using class action lawsuits to challenge repeated delays by the Department of Homeland Security in responding to FOIA requests for immigration “A-Files.” The author argues that class actions can be more effective than individual lawsuits when agencies regularly fail to act on requests.

Court opinions issued Mar. 25 & 26, 2026

Mar. 25, 2026

Informed Consent Action Network v. Nat’l Cancer Inst. (D.D.C.) — in a case concerning records of the National Cancer Institute’s involvement with the publication and later retraction of a medial journal article, granting in part the government’s motion for summary judgment; holding, first, that the agency’s search for responsive records was reasonable; noting, “that [given] Informed Consent was seeking email communications to and from a particular individual, it is hard to imagine what else the agency could do outside of search that individual’s inbox for the relevant emails,” which was done; further holding that the agency had not yet adequately justified its use of Exemption 4 because it failed to explain the basis for its declarant’s personal knowledge of the relevant medical journal’s privacy practices and, thus, had not established why the records at issue were “confidential”; permitting the agency an opportunity to “file additional evidence” before another round of briefing.

WP Co., LLC v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. (D.D.C.) — granting in part the government’s motion for summary judgment in a case concerning access to records “related to the safety of motor vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems”; holding that NHTSA properly invoked Exemption 4 to withhold “Tesla’s version and narrative information” as found in accident report data, but improperly redacted “information reported by other manufacturers” and “Tesla’s [operational design domain] information”; noting various “confidential treatment requests” from manufacturers, as well as NHTSA’s “subsequent determinations” to treat certain information as confidential, may be “indicative of the entities’ actual and customary treatment, but they are not, without more, sufficient grounds to conclude that the agency met its burden under FOIA”; noting also that, for the “confidential” analysis, what matters is “how the particular party customarily treats the information, not . . . the industry as a whole”; concluding, however, that Tesla’s “own submission fills the factual gaps in the agency’s declaration,” at least for some categories of Tesla-submitted data; rejecting the requester’s argument that Tesla drivers’ access to “individual data points” through their “phone applications or via their car’s touch screen” is sufficient to vitiate the confidentiality of that same information when submitted to the government at an aggregate level; agreeing with “other courts in this district that the government’s assurances of confidentiality are, at a minimum, ‘relevant to the confidentiality analysis,’” and here the agency’s “practice of ‘routinely’ granting Tesla’s requests [for confidential treatment], with few exceptions, established reasonable and actual reliance interests on Tesla’s part”; agreeing also with various courts that the foreseeable-harm standard requires showing how disclosure would “pose ‘genuine harm to the submitter’s economic or business interests . . . thereby dissuading others from submitting similar information to the government’”; holding that, at least with Tesla’s operational design domain information, there remained “a genuine dispute of material fact . . . over whether disclosure . . . would result in reasonably foreseeable harm”; with respect to Exemption 6, as applied to information pertaining to the “specific location of . . . reported crashes, including the latitude, longitude, address, and zip code of the accidents,” concluding the “private interests at stake here appear, at most, barely greater than de minimis because the requested spreadsheet data is not, in and of itself identifying,” and “the public interest that the Post has identified is not insignificant”; ultimately concluding, however, that further information about “the privacy interests at stake” was needed to “properly weigh those interests against the public’s”; finally, holding the agency met its burden vis-a-vis segregability.

Schiff v. Internal Revenue Serv. (D.D.C.) — granting in part and denying in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment; concluding the IRS conducted an adequate search for records responsive to plaintiff’s first FOIA request, which concerned a press conference hosted by the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement; laying out how the agency employed its eDiscovery team for an electronic search, as well as directing officials to conduct manual record searches; deciding the agency failed to justify its use of Exemptions 5 (in conjunction with the deliberative-process privilege), 7(A), and 7(E); noting the IRS’s briefing speaks only in “broad strikes” and without any “detail,” and fails altogether to address segregability and foreseeable harm; noting further, with Exemption 7, that the IRS failed even to “specify what investigation or enforcement proceeding disclosure would disrupt” or “what [law enforcement] technique or procedure is ‘at stake’”; with respect to the second FOIA request at issue, holding that plaintiff reasonably described most of the records sought, even if the resulting volume of potentially responsive records might be voluminous, but did fall short of the reasonable-description requirement for one portion of the request seeking any “materials that ‘mention’ the ‘tax authority, or authorities’ of the United States and four other countries.”

Mar. 26, 2026

Office of the Fed. Pub. Defender v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — granting in part the government’s motion for reconsideration of a summary-judgment order rejecting DOJ’s use of Exemption 7(E), despite the agency’s continued failure “to meaningfully engage with the text of the exemption and basic line-drawing questions that result from [its] position”; clarifying the previous order does not apply to Exemption “7(E) materials that Plaintiff . . . was not challenging”; further amending the summary-judgment order to hold that the government had established certain categories of information concerning, inter alia, BOP “deputy information,” “means of communications” during inmate “transport,” and other deputy assignment details, reflected law enforcement techniques and procedures given their “nature” or tendency to “reveal generalized procedures” that are part of a broader “Operational Plan”; concluding, moreover, that the government demonstrated “logically how release of the requested information might create a risk of circumvention of the law.”

Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.