Azizi v. Noem (E.D. Cal.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s FOIA claim seeking access to “aggregate data and statistics related to humanitarian parole applications for Afghanistan citizens and nationals,” because plaintiffs lacked standing to litigate a FOIA request submitted by their attorney on his own behalf.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.
Hoffmann v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (E.D. Pa.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that the government performed a reasonable search for communications related to migrant coordination at the Eagle Pass, Texas Port of Entry; further, finding that CBP’s inability to locate two relevant Samsung phones from 2019—one destroyed pursuant to routine data security protocols and the other unaccounted for despite extensive searches—did not reflect bad faith or intentional spoliation.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.
Usher v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- following in-camera review of 9 pages of records pertaining to antitrust proceedings against plaintiff, finding that DOJ improperly redacted portions of FBI interview notes under Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); specifically, the court held that only statements explicitly identifying documents as grand jury exhibits could be withheld—not redacted content consisting of witness’s discussions about public market data or trading activity, which did not implicate a secret aspect of the grand jury’s investigation.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.
Greenspan v. DOT (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration properly withheld Tesla-related documents under Exemption 4 and that disclosure would cause foreseeable competitive harm to Tesla and undermine NHTSA’s ability to gather similar data; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that NHTSA’s delay in ruling on Tesla’s confidentiality requests meant the information should no longer be protected under FOIA; and (2) NHTSA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold to internal discussions on whether and how to investigate Tesla, and that disclosure would foreseeably harm agency decision-making by discouraging candid internal dialogue.
Zaid v. DHS (D. Md.) -- determining that: (1) ICE performed a reasonable search and properly withheld records under Exemption 7(A) due to their connection to active child exploitation investigations; and (2) ICE properly withheld identifying information about third parties under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), rejecting plaintiff’s argument that names of all ICE employees at GS-14 salary level or above must be disclosed.
New Orleans Navy Hous. v. U.S. Dep't of Navy (E.D. La.) -- in a case concerning records related to the management and funding of a military housing project, finding that the Navy properly withheld some records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, but held that its foreseeable harm explanations and many of its Vaughn Index entries were insufficient; the court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the withheld documents related solely to contract administration and were therefore categorically outside the scope of the privilege.
Nat’l Pub. Radio v. U.S. Cen. Command (S.D. Cal.) -- in ongoing case concerning a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan, tentatively ruling that plaintiff was both eligible and entitled to interim attorney’s fees and costs; further, tentatively deferring its decision as to the hours, costs and final amount appropriate and ordering parties to attend a settlement conference with magistrate judge.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.
N.Y. Times v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y) -- holding that DOJ did not “improperly” withhold Volume II of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report concerning President Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, because an injunction issued by a federal court in Florida prohibits the report’s release; rejecting plaintiff’s collateral attack on the the Florida court’s jurisdiction since its order had at least a colorable basis in protecting co-defendants’ fair trial rights and it was implicitly recognized by the Eleventh Circuit.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.
Proj. for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability v. ODNI (D.D.C.) -- in a case concerning records about former agency director’s testimony purchases of Americans’ data, determining that: (1) ODNI properly relied on Exemption 1 and 3 to withhold certain classified records on intelligence sources and methods, but agency’s explanation for some redactions were too conclusory; (2) ODNI’s redactions under the attorney-client communications privilege were proper, but its justifications for the deliberative process privilege were conclusory and insufficiently detailed to show foreseeable harm; (3) ODNI’s reliance on Exemption 7(E) appeared to be proper for FBI records describing non-public law enforcement techniques under Section 702 of FISA, but a supplemental affidavit was required to clarify whether any redactions improperly included legal analysis or interpretations of the law; and (4) rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that previously issued unclassified policy guidance constituted official acknowledgment of withheld information.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.
New Civil Liberties All. v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) the SEC demonstrated that it performed an adequate search for records concerning a “control deficiency”; (2) the agency properly withheld its communications with outside investigators under the attorney-work product privilege, noting that the consultant corollary applied to the group’s work and that anticipated litigation motivated the creation of the disputed records; and (3) the agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold employee and contractor names and contact details.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.
Schubert v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- ruling that pro se inmate failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for one request concerning an alleged BOP employee, and BOP properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of personnel records about another alleged employee under Exemption 6.
MSW Media, Inc. v. U.S. DOGE Serv. (D.D.C.) -- granting plaintiffs’ motion to preserve records in FOIA action because: (1) plaintiffs raised serious legal questions about whether Elon Musk was acting as a de facto USDS employee; (2) there was a risk of irreparable harm due to potential deletion of records, especially messages sent via Signal; (3) the burden on USDS to preserve records was minimal; and (4) preserving the records served the public interest in government transparency.
Informed Consent Action Network v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- granting an initial six-month stay instead of the requested 18 months after finding the agency showed exceptional circumstances due to court-ordered production of millions of COVID-19 vaccine records and demonstrated due diligence in processing FOIA requests; limiting the stay to avoid rendering disclosures stale or irrelevant.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.
James Madison Proj. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) the CIA properly invoked Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold both its 2022 assessments of so-called “Havana syndrome” and an unknown number of undescribed records responsive to plaintiff’s request for “intelligence information relied upon” and “findings made” in connection with those assessments; and (2) the CIA was not required to perform a search for quantitative or qualitative information before issuing a “no number, no list” response, because “nothing the agency uncovered could be released,” and thus there was “no utility in CIA’s conducting a further search.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.
Burleigh v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n (D.D.C.) — denying plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction; concluding plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm by explaining how the requested records were “‘time-sensitive and highly probative, or even essential to the integrity, of an imminent event, after which event the utility of the records would be lessened or lost’”; noting the requesters’ “complaints . . . [about needing] due expedition have largely been addressed by the grant of expedited consideration they have already received”; nevertheless opining that “plaintiffs’ consternation with the course of events since the lawsuit was filed is not wholly misplaced” since the agency has not been willing to provide a timeline for the completion of production and gave plaintiffs’ an “initial production” of “only 35 pages.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.