Codrea v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- concluding that ATF properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of agency’s involvement in alleged 2018 gun incident involving Hunter Biden; finding that public interest in agency’s handling of this matter was “significant,” but that it was outweighed by subject’s “remarkably strong” privacy interest.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ecological Rights Found. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency (D.D.C.) — in a challenge to the EPA’s 2019 direct final rule implementing various changes to the agency’s FOIA regulations, (1) granting the government’s motion to dismiss several claims on various grounds (lack of standing, failure to state a claim, redressability, and/or statute of limitations)—namely, two substantive claims challenging provisions requiring submission of all requests to the EPA’s National FOIA Office and authorizing the Administrator to issue final determinations, as well as a procedural claim alleging failure to promulgate the rule through notice-and-comment rulemaking; (2) remanding the remaining claim without vacatur to permit the EPA to revise a portion of the rule authorizing the withholding of a “portion of a record on the basis of responsiveness.”
Cause of Action Inst. v. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) — ruling that: (1) requester had standing to bring policy-and-practice challenge to agency’s allegedly unlawful withholding of Section 232 secretarial reports under Exemption 5, in conjunction with the presidential-communications and deliberative-process privileges, until such time as the President directs disclosure; (2) the same policy-and-practice claim was ripe for review because it required neither “speculation about future application” nor consideration of “the facts of a particular case”; and (3) the claim fails on the merits because secretarial reports required under 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b)—or at least the underlying report requested by the plaintiff—falls “squarely within [the presidential-communications] privilege” as “a confidential report from a Cabinet Secretary to the President, created to advise him on matters of national security and ‘made in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.’”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Wash. Post v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) government could not use Exemption 6 to categorically withhold names of retired, non-Senate confirmed service members who applied to work for foreign governments; (2) government was required to disclose income and security clearance information of retired, Senate-confirmed foreign employment applicants that had been withheld under Exemption 6; (3) Air Force properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold name of military officer alleged to have violated federal law; (4) Departments of the Army and the Navy improperly relied on attorney-client privilege to withhold portions of memoranda containing facts provided by non-agency personnel, and they failed to reasonably segregable factual materials withheld under the deliberative process privilege.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Smith v. DOJ (M.D. Fla.) -- finding that: (1) FBI performed adequate searches for all but one of 14 items pertaining to a third party’s prosecution for production and possession of child pornography; (2) FBI properly withheld some, but not all, responsive records pursuant to Exemption 7(A), and FBI’s declaration discussing agency’s concurrent reliance on underlying exemptions was too general to warrant summary judgment.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Advancement Proj. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) ICE properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to visa sanctions, but it failed to properly explain its segregability analysis; and (2) State Department properly withheld records on same subject pursuant to Exemption 7(E) and Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency did not entirely justify its search for records concerning former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power’s requests to “unmask” the identity of former National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn in intelligence reports.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Kowal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on third round of summary judgment, concluding that DEA properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold portions of DEA’s Agents’ Manual.
Ctr. for Medical Progress v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency properly invoked Exemption 4 to withhold five categories of disputed records pertaining to University of Pittsburgh’s fetal tissue-related grant application to NIH, and agency sufficiently demonstrated that disclosure would cause foreseeable harm; and (2) agency properly withheld records identifying university’s employees, third-party supporters, and clients pursuant to Exemption 6 due to potential violence and harassment.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Munene v. Talebian (W.D. Wash.) -- denying award of attorneys’ fees and costs after concluding that plaintiffs failed to establish that lawsuit had “a substantial causative effect on EOIR's release of the requested documents.”
Buzzfeed Inc. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that ICE again failed to justify use of Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to redact two documents pertaining to alien “Risk Classification Assessments,” and granting ICE’s renewed summary judgment motion regarding searches and withholdings not in dispute.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Dale v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for various records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F), which plaintiff did not dispute.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Wine v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s FOIA claim because he failed to administratively appeal from agency’s decision to partially redact email about law enforcement’s entry onto plaintiff’s property.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Kendrick v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency did not adequately describe how it searched for certain records concerning plaintiff, who was sentenced to “life imprisonment plus 30 years” for his involvement in a “drug ring,” and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.