Court opinion issued Sept. 23, 2025

Gov’t Accountability & Oversight v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- partially granting SEC’s summary judgment motion in case concerning internal emails withheld under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; finding that the SEC adequately justified using the privilege for records related to climate rulemaking, and adequately addressed foreseeable harm and segregability; however, the agency failed to justify withholdings for three entries vaguely described as concerning “various rulemakings.”

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 Sept. 18, 2025

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Justice Servs. (D. S.D.) -- awarding plaintiff $27,484 in attorney’s fees and costs after finding it was both eligible and entitled to such an award; as to eligibility, the court concluded that the lawsuit was the catalyst for the agency’s delayed response, noting that the agency did not begin searching for records until nearly two months after the complaint was filed and did not attempt to extend the statutory deadline; regarding entitlement, the court determined that plaintiff’s request served a significant public interest, involved no commercial motive, and that the government lacked a reasonable legal basis for the delay; lastly, the court deemed the requested fees largely reasonable, except for time spent on an unfiled summary judgment motion, which warranted a 50 percent reduction.

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 Sept. 16, 2025

Brown v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) the FBI performed an adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s 1995 arrest; (2) the FBI, DEA, and EOUSA properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to redact identifying information about special agents, local law enforcement personnel, and third parties mentioned or of investigative interest; (3) FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to protect “nonpublic coordination with other government agencies” and “sensitive information contained within FBI FD-515 forms”; (4) as an alternative basis for Exemptions 6 and 7(C), DEA properly relied on Exemption 7(F) to protect names and identifying information of DEA agents, and the EOUSA properly used the same exemption protected names and identifying information of individuals who were interviewed by the FBI; and (5) the FBI failed to adequately describe, let alone justify, withholding some pages that may have been withheld in full.

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 Sept. 15, 2025

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.

Court opinion issued Sept. 10, 2025

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.

Court opinion issued Sept. 9, 2025

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.

Court opinions issued Sept. 8, 2025

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.

Court opinion issued Sept. 4, 2025

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.

Court opinion issued Sept. 2, 2025

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.

Court opinion issued Aug. 29, 2025

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.