Court opinions issued July 25, 2025

Wash. Lawyers' Comm. for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming summary judgment for the government, finding that: (1) Federal Bureau of Prisons did not have an unlawful policy of practice of delaying FOIA responses, crediting agency’s good-faith efforts to improve processing times and manage high request volumes; and (2) rejecting appellant’s argument that disciplinary and educational records should be released through an expedited process like medical records under the Privacy Act.

Bender v. DOT (S.D. Cal.) -- granting the government's motion for partial summary judgment because plaintiff failed to properly exhaust the administrative remedies for three of his FOIA claims; specifically, plaintiff did not submit a valid appeal for his 2019 request, offered no evidence that appealing part of a 2022 request would have been futile, and incorrectly argued that a third request was merely a clarification rather than a formal submission.

Am. Wild Horse Campaign v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D.D.C.) (Mag. J.) -- reporting and recommending that plaintiff was both eligible for and entitled to attorney’s fees, noting that the agency changed its position on whether plaintiff’s request was reasonably described and released additional documents only after litigation commenced and the court had denied agency’s motion to dismiss; further finding that plaintiff’s billing rates were reasonable, but that several categories of billed hours—particularly those spent on post-production settlement negotiations and "fees-on-fees" work—were excessive and should be reduced.

Haleem v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- granting government’s motion for reconsideration concerning 17 pages containing “inscrutable code,” because the government’s supplemental declarations established that the code “can be deciphered by foreign intelligence actors or cyber criminals and used to evade DOD investigations, thus qualifying the pages to be withheld under Exemption 7(E).”

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

Court opinion issued July 24, 2025

White v. Dep’t of Agric. (E.D. Okla.) — denying the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment; holding the agency failed to demonstrate the adequacy of its search because its supporting affidavit was “conclusory” and did not “identify the agency’s search terms, the type of search performed, and d[id] not aver that all files likely to contain responsive materials were searched”; rejecting also the requester’s arguments on search adequacy and whether the term “present time” in the temporal scope of the request at issue meant “through the date of production,” as opposed to the “date of the FOIA request.”

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

Court opinions issued July 23, 2025

Eddington v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — denying the requester’s motion for attorneys’ fees; holding the requester was not eligible to recover fees because he did not substantially prevail; noting the requester “failed to show that [the] alleged disparity” between the processing time for his request, and the average time for fully processing a request at DOJ’s National Security Division in 2019, “establish[ed] [that] DOJ ‘suddenly accelerated’ processing [on his request] because [he] filed suit.”

Gun Owners of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (D.D.C.) — granting the agency’s motion for summary judgment and denying the requester’s motion to lift a “temporary protective order” as moot; holding the agency properly applied Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), which plaintiff did not contest; after distinguishing the D.C. Circuit’s recent opinion in Human Rights Defense Center v. U.S. Park Police, holding further that the court retained inherent equitable authority to prohibit the requester from further dissemination of “inadvertently disclosed” information “‘related to the FBI and ATF’s warrantless NICS Monitoring Program’” and protected by Exemptions 3 and 7(E).

Heritage Found. v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s motion for summary judgment and holding that the agency conducted an adequate search; rejecting the requester’s argument that DOJ’s supporting declaration “lack[ed] sufficient specificity to establish that responsive data does not exist,” when the agency “would have [had] to sift through the available data, analyze it, drawn inferences from it, and create a new record” to fulfill the request; similarly rejecting the requester’s contention that the agency failed to inquire into where responsive data “‘may have already been compiled’ in some other form” because the hypothetical existence of such data was unsupported by any evidence.

Bothwell v. Dep’t of Justice (W.D. Okla.) — granting the agency’s motion for summary judgment; holding that the agency conducted an adequate search because “DOJ has set forth in adequate detail the methods used to search the electronic files, the search terms used, and the specific record systems searched,” and that the requester did “not suggest . . . other search terms, search methods, or alternative records systems”; holding further that the agency properly used Exemption 6 to withhold “personal information, including [a] social security number, date of birth, and addresses in . . . SF-50s”; declining to provide the requester with declaratory relief or to recognize a private right of action for monetary damages; notably, rejecting the government’s attempt to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under FRCP 12(b)(1) on mootness grounds because the agency had provided all responsive records.

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

Court opinion issued July 21, 2025

Ezeah v. Exec. Office for U.S. Att’ys. (D.D.C.) — granting in part the government’s unopposed motion for summary judgment; holding the agency “partly carried” its burden to demonstrate it conducted a search reasonable calculated to locate responsive records, but that it left unaddressed several items of the request; granting the government the opportunity to “fill in holes” in its explanation of its searches before entering partial judgment in favor of the requester.

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

Court opinions issued July 18, 2025

Proj. for Privacy & Surveillance v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that six intelligence agencies properly relied on Exemption 1 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records regarding the “unmasking” or “upstreaming” of 48 then-current or former members of congressional intelligence committees; rejecting requester’s argument that agencies were required to search for records before issuing Glomar responses or that those responses did not meet the criteria of Executive Order 13,526 or Exemption 1.

Fouts v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (S.D.N.Y.) -- denying pro se plaintiff’s motion to reconsider court’s order transferring plaintiff’s case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, because plaintiff “failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked any controlling law or factual matter”; noting that plaintiff did not reside in the Southern District of New York and his complaint did not indicated that the disputed records were situated there.

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

Court opinions issued July 17, 2025

Brodsky v. FBI (7th Cir.) -- affirming district’s court decision that FBI properly relied on Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) to withhold certain records concerning requester’s status as a confidential informant, as well to support agency’s Glomar response; declining to change the Circuit’s standard of review in FOIA cases, which calls for de novo review as to whether there was “an adequate factual basis to make a legally sound decision,” and then clear error review of “the court’s conclusions that the documents were properly withheld or redacted under the exemptions”; rejecting requester’s argument that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) affects the weight a court may give to declarations made by agency officials in a FOIA case.

Gage v. EEOC (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that agency properly issued an Exemption 3 Glomar response and that requests for “Gage’s charge file . . . were moot because the EEOC produced all non-exempt documents; further ruling that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying discovery.

Carlborg v. Dep't of Navy (S.D. Cal.) -- in case concerning records of plaintiff’s involuntary discharge from the military, determining that: (1) plaintiff’s FOIA claims arising from one batch of requests were precluded under the doctrine of res judicata, but that other claims were not; and (2) government established that it performed adequate searches in response to plaintiff’s multiple requests, and that the Navy was not required to create screenshots of records already produced to plaintiff; and (3) government properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the names, social security numbers, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, military rank, and signatures of third parties and government employees

Moslem v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying pro se inmate’s recusal motion because plaintiff’s claims of bias merely boiled down to allegations of judicial mistakes, which falls short of the disqualification standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 455; ruling that plaintiff did not have standing to challenge Tax Division’s response to a request identified in plaintiff’s Complaint, because the request was not submitted by plaintiff or by anyone claiming it was submitted on plaintiff’s behalf; and denying plaintiff’s various other requests for relief on both procedural grounds and on the merits.

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

Court opinion issued July 16, 2025

Kinnally v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (S.D. Cal.) -- dismissing case as moot because plaintiff’s complaint sought only to compel production of records, which the agency ultimately released after lawsuit was filed; noting that plaintiff’s failure to respond to agency’s motion further supported dismissal without prejudice and without leave to amend the complaint.

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

Court opinion issued July 15, 2025

Brown v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation (D.C. Cir.) — affirming the district court; holding that the FBI conducted an adequate search and properly interpreted a request for “witness accounts, narratives, or statements” to implicate, “in agency parlance,” only “formal witness interviews and memorialized FD-203 forms,” and not such materials as “records of 911 calls,” logs or recordings of “police radio communications,” or “raw recordings of witness interviews”; holding further that the FBI’s properly invoked Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(D); rejecting, specifically, the requester’s arguments that the agency had not satisfied the foreseeable-harm standard; finally, affirming the district court’s denial of in camera review.

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

Court opinions issued July 14, 2025

Sharpe v. U.S. Fed. Highway Admin. (9th Cir.) (unpublished)— vacating the district court’s judgment, dismissing appeal as moot, and remanding the case because the agency produced over two thousand pages of documents during appeal after initially refusing to process the request for being too vague.

Wright v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s motion for partial summary judgment in a case about records related to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System; concluding HHS and CDC conducted adequate searches because they were “conducted in good faith and target[ed] the record systems most likely to contain the requested information,” and even involved subject-matter “experts” to help “define search terms”; noting the agencies undertook supplemental search efforts, even though not required, thus demonstrating “responsiveness to [the requester’s] concerns”; accepting the government’s arguments that the requester had tried to expand his request by demanding “unrelated and unduly burdensome” additional searches for communications “with other government agencies and third parties”; reaffirming that “an agency satisfies its FOIA obligations when it provides requesters with information that is already publicly available, especially when the alternative would be to duplicate materials already accessible”; characterizing the requester’s arguments—including those related to searches of personal email accounts—as “mere speculation,” albeit “strongly worded”'; concluding further that the agencies properly withheld information under Exemptions 5 and 6 because the requester “has effectively waived any objection” and the agencies’ “justifications for withholding . . . are adequately supported.”

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

Court opinions issued July 8 - July 10, 2025

July 8, 2025

Whitlock v. Dep’t of Def. (D.D.C.) — granting in part the government’s motion for reconsideration and allowing the to reprocess records previously withheld on a categorical basis and ordered to be disclosed, but limiting reprocessing to the applicability of Exemptions 1, 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E); concluding that one of the D.C. Circuit’s “narrow exceptions” to the general rule requiring assertion of “all FOIA exemptions at the same time” applied here because “the government failed to press additional exemptions in their summary judgment papers due to attorney error; explaining the agency would not, however, be allowed to make new Exemption 5 or Exemption 7(D) arguments (except with respect to the identity of a confidential source) because it has “not sufficiently explained how releas[e] . . . would compromise national security, infringe on third parties’ privacy or safety, or otherwise be harmful or unfair.”

July 9, 2025

Jackson v. HHS (D. Nev.) -- setting aside its dismissal of plaintiff claim and reopening case for good cause, because plaintiff had filed an opposition to government’s motion to dismiss prior to court’s ruling and only one day after the filing deadline—which plaintiff reportedly misread.

July 10, 2025

Becker v. Department of the Navy (D.D.C.) — granting in part and denying in part the agency’s motion for summary judgment; concluding the Navy properly withheld material under Exemption 3, which was concurrently withheld under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), whose use was not challenged by the requester; deferring judgment on the propriety of the agency’s use of Exemptions 5 and 7(E) pending its reprocessing of certain records and, if needed, renewed summary judgment cross-motions.

Pearce v. Department of the Army (D.D.C.) — granting the Army’s motion for summary judgment in a joint-FOIA/Privacy Act case concerning records of EEOC administrative proceedings; concluding, in relevant part, that the agency properly applied Exemption 5, in conjunction with the attorney-client, attorney work-product, and deliberative-process privileges, as well as Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D); holding the Army’s disclosure of certain privileged records during discovery in EEOC proceedings did not waive privilege for purposes of the FOIA; further holding the Army properly treated the requester’s own “summary judgment motion and certain deposition exhibits . . . [containing] information about a settlement proposal and draft settlement agreement” as protected by the deliberative-process privilege; recognizing the Exemption 7 threshold is met and that documents from EEOC administrative proceedings qualify as records compiled for “law enforcement” purposes; interestingly failing to offer any analysis on the Army’s satisfaction of the foreseeable-harm standard for all of the asserted statutory exemptions.

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