Court opinion issued Oct. 6, 2025

Ferguson v. DOJ (N.D. Ill.) -- determining that DOJ performed an adequate search for records related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act and the Justice for all Reauthorization Act, and that it properly withheld records under Exemptions 4, 5, and 6; noting that pro se plaintiff failed to follow local rules for filing a summary judgment motion—a deficiency that was itself fatal—but nevertheless proceeding to consider the merits and finding that plaintiff presented no evidence to contradict the government’s showing.

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 Oct. 1, 2025

Jackson v. HHS (D. Nev.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s claim against the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for lack of standing because plaintiff did not personally submit requests for records about CMS’s investigation of him for Medicaid fraud; instead, the requests were submitted by his private investigator, who never informed CMS that he was acting on plaintiff’s behalf.

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. 30, 2025

Farahi v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation (D.C. Cir.) — affirming the district court; holding that the requester’s FBI file was protected against disclosure under Exemption 7(A); noting, at the outset, that the district court properly recognized the FBI had “carried its burden” to demonstrate the records at issue were compiled for law enforcement purposes; noting further that the lower court “correctly concluded that disclosure could be reasonably expected to interfere with pending or reasonably anticipated enforcement proceedings” given the requester’s past history and longstanding ties to the “Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,” “Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and other known Al Qaeda members,” and “multiple convicted or indicted terrorists,” including “Jose Padilla”; rejecting the requester’s objection to the FBI’s categorical use of the exemption; determining the agency had taken reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information from the FBI file, even though those efforts were largely described in an ex parte declaration.

Am. Transparency v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. (D.D.C) — in a case involving records about the payment of royalties—or so-called “inventor awards”—to employees of the National Institutes of Health, denying the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment; concluding the agency could not withhold the requested information pursuant to Exemption 6 because “[f]ederal government employees have a limited privacy interest in information about their compensation,” and “there is a clear public interest” vis-a-vis “question[ing] whether investors’ financial interests in the success of their technologies affects how they conduct clinical trials”; rejecting the agency’s asserted foreseeable harms under Exemption 6, such as violation of the “expectation of trust and confidentiality that licensees and inventors have with NIH,” and “limit[ing] bargaining opportunities” of employees once they leave government service; determining there is a “genuine dispute of material fact” as to whether Exemption 3, in conjunction with the Federal Transfer and Technology Act, and Exemption 4 might apply because it is unclear “whether it is possible to back-calculate how much a licensee pays in royalties from the amount NIH distributes to an individual inventor.”

McKathan v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s motion for summary judgment; holding that the pro se requester failed to exhaust administrative remedies with the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys by filing an appeal; rejecting the argument that the component’s non-adverse determination was improper because it lacked a notice about appeal rights; holding further that the Criminal Division conducted a reasonable search.

Doe v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t (D.D.C.) — in a case involving records about ICE’s improper disclosure of an asylum applicant’s confidential information, denying the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and providing the agency “another opportunity” to defend its withholdings; holding that the agency had not sufficiently justified its use of Exemption 5; noting the agency did not explain how records withheld under the deliberative-process privilege actually played part of any “decisional process”; noting further that, while ICE had shown why the attorney-client privilege would apply in part to records reflecting requests for legal advice, it had not demonstrated the application of the privilege to documents reflecting the provision of legal advice; holding further that the agency failed to identify non-generic foreseeable harms from disclosure, and did not tie such harms to the records at issue; of particular note, concluding that ICE’s asserted foreseeable harms for records withheld under the attorney-client privilege were too “broad [and] categorial,” as the agency incorrectly assumed a “per se harm[]” stemming from “disclosing any attorney-client material” could satisfy the statutory standard.

Heritage Found. v. Dep't of Justice (D. Del.) — granting the government’s motion for summary judgment; holding that a declarant from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys was competent of laying a factual foundation for defending the agency’s withholdings, despite not having first-hand knowledge of the underlying records, which originated in the Special Counsel’s Office; holding further that the agency properly applied Exemption 5 (together with the deliberative-process, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges) to various categories of records, including draft congressional correspondence and related internal communications, handwritten notes, and e-mail; concluding that DOJ properly withheld the names of U.S. Attorney’s Office employees and references to an employee family member under Exemption 6; finally, holding the agency properly withheld an internal file name used to reference the Hunter Biden investigation 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 opinions issued Sept. 29, 2025

Milliron v. DOD (W.D. Mich.) -- adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and holding that the department properly withheld portions of a Georgia Tech report under Exemption 4; rejecting plaintiff’s claim that the report was intended for public release, finding instead that it was clearly labeled as confidential, designated for internal government use only, and contained proprietary methodologies protected from disclosure.

Aland v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior (N.D. Ill.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s claims against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Office of the Secretary, because plaintiff appealed the FSW’s denial after the 90-day deadline and his appeal to the Secretary failed to include certain documents required by Departmental regulations.

Lowe v. U.S. Dep't of Justice Office of Info. Policy (S.D.N.Y.) -- adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and finding that: (1) EOUSA conducted an adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F); and (2) neither EOUSA nor DEA was required to re-process a DEA interview report that EOUSA located only in redacted form, but plaintiff could submit a separate request to DEA directly.

Informed Consent Action Network v. NASA (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning communications between two Caltech-employed scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, ruling that the records weren’t “agency records” because they were created and stored by Caltech employees and NASA did not control the records as they were on Caltech systems, not government servers.

Khatchadourian v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- granting partial summary to both parties in case concerning records about James Ralph Rose, Jr., who was convicted in 1979 for plotting to bomb whaling vessels in Chile; specifically, the court held that: (1) the FBI failed to justify its use of Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of deceased individuals, those who signed waivers, or whose identities were already public; (2) the FBI met its burden to protect the identity of confidential informants under Exemption 7(D); (3) the FBI’s explanations were too vague and conclusory to justify its Exemption 7(E) withholdings; (4) the FBI could not rely on Exemption 7(F) to withhold explosives-related information already made public at trial, or to withhold the name of law enforcement personnel because the supporting affidavit was unsigned; and (5) the FBI’s Glomar responses, to which plaintiff did not dispute, were upheld under Exemptions 1, 3, 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).

Eban v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning “Operation Whitecoat”—a Cold War-era U.S. Army medical research program that used volunteer Seventh-Day Adventist soldiers as test subjects in biological warfare experiments—the court found that: (1) the Army failed to conduct an adequate search for electronic records at two key research facilities due to incomplete search terms, a limited search scope, and inconsistencies in the Army’s declarations; emphasizing that searching only the "most likely" location for responsive records was insufficient and that the Army was required to search all locations reasonably likely to contain responsive records; and (2) the Army’s search for physical records at various facilities was sufficient, reasoning there was no strong evidence that responsive records existed only in hard-copy form and had not been accounted for through electronic searches.

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. 26, 2025

Am. First Legal Found. v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — in a case involving records about DOJ’s handling of the prosecuting and sentencing of an arsonist from the 2020 Minneapolis riots, granting in part and denying in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment; concluding that a presentence investigation report (“PSR”), which originated with the U.S. Probation Office, qualified as an “agency record” under DOJ’s legal control because, inter alia, the Bureau of Prisons uses such reports for “multiple purposes post-sentencing,” and the reports are transmitted to the U.S. Parole Commission to be integrated into the “framework of executive branch decision-making”; rejecting, in this regard, DOJ’s argument that the PSR at issue ought to be sealed, as the agency failed to produce a valid sealing order, and its public referencing of the PSR in sentencing filings “waives any residual confidentiality claim[s]”; holding further, with respect to a record reflecting DOJ’s recommendation for a downward variance, that the record was properly withheld under Exemption 5, in conjunction with the deliberative-process and attorney work-product privileges, as well as Exemption7(C), and that DOJ satisfied the foreseeable-harm standard.

Grand Marina Investors v. Internal Revenue Serv. (D.D.C.) — granting the agency’s motion for summary judgment; holding, firstly, that the requester failed to administratively exhaust its challenge to the IRS’s search, in large part because the requester failed to address the issue in its summary-judgment briefing and “‘spell out its arguments squarely and distinctly’”; holding further that the IRS properly applied Exemption 3, in conjunction with I.R.C. § 6103; Exemption 5, in conjunction with the deliberative-process privilege; and Exemption 7(E); describing the requester’s argument, at various points, as “woefully underdeveloped,” “ring[ing] hallow,” and otherwise ungrounded in controlling caselaw.

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. 25, 2025

Jones v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment in case concerning pro se plaintiff’s prosecution records, ruling that: (1) DOJ cured its deficient search by following an “obvious lead” to discover additional records; (2) DOJ properly relied on the attorney work-product privilege to withhold interview notes, prosecution memoranda, draft or unfiled pleadings, and case file notes; and (3) DOJ properly invoked the deliberative process privileges to withhold a prosecution memorandum used internally to help decide whether to charge plaintiff.

Power the Future v. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the agency performed a reasonable search for text messages after crediting the agency’s explanation that the messages were unrecoverable due to the loss and damage of the employee’s phones and that all plausible means to retrieve the messages were attempted.

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. 24, 2025

Informed Consent Action Network v. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (D.D.C.) — denying each party’s motion for summary judgment; concluding the government had not established whether its “contract employee” functioned “just as an employee would” in a “disinterested” way; concluding further that the agency had failed to adequately demonstrate the applicability of the deliberative-process privilege and justify its segregation of factual and deliberative material; rejecting the requester’s argument that, under the foreseeable-harm standard, the potential for “public confusion” is not a recognized interest protected by the deliberative-process privilege, but also determining the government had failed to offer anything but a “boilerplate” “rationale” here for the link “between the specified harm—public confusion—and the nature of the withheld documents”; directing the parties to refile their motions, thus providing the agency “a second bite at the apple.”

Am. Oversight, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. (D.D.C.) — on remand from the D.C. Circuit, 101 F.4th 909, denying the intervening U.S. House Committee on Ways & Means’s motion for summary judgment and granting the requester’s cross-motion; concluding, under the D.C. Circuit’s so-called “modified control test,” that “five sets of email communications and attachments” comprising communications between agencies and Congress about “healthcare reform legislation,” which cannot be exempt under Exemption 5, qualify as “agency records” and are not under Congress’s legal “control”; rejecting Congress’s argument that the mere affixing of an email “Legend” asserting control is adequate because it is only a “generally applicable disclaimer” without the required “specificity” to treat the records at issue as congressional in nature, and no other evidence exists to demonstrate any effort to “set parameters [reflecting Congress’s retention of control] for the information exchanged with the Agency”; noting also that the agencies conceded they had used the records “as they saw fit” for their own decision-making processes,” a fact Congress did not deny but attempted to argue should not be considered as part of the Court’s control analysis.

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. 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.