Am. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv. (2d Cir.) — affirming district court dismissal of “policy or practice claim” that alleged APHIS, as a result of its decommissioning of certain databases of proactively disclosed records , was regularly citing “exemptions that do not apply” and engaging in “unreasonable, inexcusable and unexplained delays” while adjudicating requests and appeals for the same records previously hosted on the databases; holding that, “even assuming that a ‘policy or practice’ claim is cognizable [in the Second Circuit], . . . such a claim . . . [fails] because [Congress] . . . reversed the alleged policy or practice . . . [by] direct[ing] the agencies to ‘restore’ each decommissioned database ‘and its contents’ to the status quo ante . . . [and to make those records] available ‘in their entirety without redactions except signatures’”; reasoning that, even if the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Payne Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, were adopted, it would be inapt because the same “extraordinary set of circumstances” is not present here; of especial note, in a concurrence, Judge Menashi opined that the FOIA does not provide for a ‘policy or practice’ claim, and “[t]he proper avenue for challenging the policies and practice of agencies [vis-a-vis the FOIA] is the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
