Court opinions issued Nov. 3, 2025

Viola v. DOJ (3rd. Cir.) -- affirming in part and vacating in part district court’s decision concerning records related to federal government’s prosecution of plaintiff-appellant, and holding that: (1) the district court properly dismissed plaintiff-appellant’s claim against a task force comprised of state and local government entities, because federal funding and oversight did not convert those entities into federal agencies; (2) the district court correctly found that EOUSA performed a reasonable search, but erred in concluding that the FBI’s search was adequate because the FBI failed to demonstrate that it searched all locations likely to contain responsive records; (3) the district court properly found that Exemptions 6 and 7(C) protected records related to third parties, except for EOUSA’s full withholding of certain trial exhibits, correspondence, and witness statements in full; and (4) the FBI’s withholdings under Exemption 7(D) were improvidently granted because the agency failed to provide sufficient evidence that its sources had an implied assurance of confidentiality; and (5) the district court incorrectly upheld FBI’s withholding of database search results under Exemption 7(E), because the agency’s use of that database was a routine technique and the agency failed to show a reasonable risk of circumvention of law.

Stevens v. Dep't of the Army (N.D. Ill.) -- in case concerning records related to Northwestern University’s proposed expansion into Lake Michigan, the court determined that: (1) the Army unreasonably referred plaintiff’s request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers without conducting its own search for records; and (2) plaintiff constructively exhausted her administrative remedies prior to filing suit and the Army’s subsequent referral of the request to the Wisconsin Army National Guard did not reset exhaustion requirements; and (3) the Wisconsin National Guard conducted a reasonable search of physical records related to a helicopter flight, but it did not adequately explain its search for electronically-stored 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 Oct. 31, 2025

William & Connolly v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that ICE conducted an adequate search for records related to individuals involved in a sanctions evasion case in the Southern District of New York, and that CBP and USCIS properly withheld records pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C) and met the statute’s foreseeable harm and segregability requirements. 

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. 29, 2025

Ecological Rights Found. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (N.D. Cal.) -- on motion for attorney’s fees and costs, ruling that: (1) plaintiff was ineligible for an award against the National Marine Fisheries Service because the agency had issued determinations before the lawsuit was filed; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that NMFS’s referral of certain records negated a final determination, finding instead that the referral constituted a constructive withholding subject to administrative appeal; (2) alternatively, plaintiff was not a prevailing party against NMFS as the lawsuit did not prompt the agency to alter its position or disclose additional responsive records; (3) plaintiff was eligible for an award against USACE because its lawsuit served as a catalyst for the agency’s additional searches, record releases, and agreement to produce documents in native format with metadata; and (4) plaintiff was entitled to an award bases on traditional four-factor test, but reducing requested amount to exclude time spent on unsuccessful claims and excessive or duplicative billing.

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. 24, 2025

New Orleans Navy Housing v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy (E.D. La.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that the Navy properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney–client privileges, met the statute’s foreseeable harm requirement, conducted an adequate segregability analysis, and that in camera review was unnecessary given the agency’s supplemental submissions.

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. 23, 2025

Levitt v. IRS (N.D. Ala.) -- dismissing case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff lacked Article III standing, having submitted the FOIA request on behalf of his client while filing the lawsuit in his personal capacity.

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. 22, 2025

Malik v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, concluding that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services properly relied on Exemptions 7(E) and 7(C) to redact a “Memo for the Record” concerning plaintiff’s application for employment with the agency; noting that the agency’s supplemental declaration explained that the memo in question discussed the Office of Personnel Management's background investigation of plaintiff, which qualified as a law enforcement purpose under Exemption 7.

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 Oct. 17, 2025

Campaign for Accountability v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming in part and reversing in part the district court’s decision and holding that Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) opinions are not subject to FOIA’s “reading-room” disclosure requirements because they are not “final opinions made in the adjudication of cases” nor “statements of policy or interpretations adopted by the agency; vacating the district court’s order requiring disclosure of OLC opinions resolving interagency disputes, reasoning that OLC opinions offer prospective legal advice, not binding orders or adjudications, and therefore do not resolve “cases” or have determinate consequences; noting that although OLC’s opinions are considered authoritative within the Executive Branch, they are not automatically adopted as the “working law” of client agencies unless an agency actually implements them as its own; in a concurring opinion, Judge Rao emphasized that appellant lacked standing because its claims were a generalized grievance without a particularized injury or concrete harm.

Husch Blackwell LLP v. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- in a case concerning records on how and why the Bureau of Industry and Security added certain companies to the “Entity List,” which restricts exports to foreign entities for national security reasons, ruling that: (1) BIS had not justified its withholding under Exemption 1, because its declarations merely repeated classification language without explaining how disclosure would harm national security; and (2) although the Export Control Reform Act qualifies as an Exemption 3 statute, BIS failed to show that withheld memoranda fit within the Ac’s enumerated or closely related categories.

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. 16, 2025

Informed Consent Action Network v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- granting 18-month stay after finding that FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) faced exceptional circumstances, specifically “skyrocketing” requests since 2019 and litigation rates that had “exploded” in same time period; noting that agency had demonstrated due diligence through staff reallocation, new hires, and a tiered response system; further noting that plaintiff was a “major contributor to the onslaught,” having submitted more than 350 FOIA requests to CBER and accounting for two-thirds of CBER's open FOIA lawsuits.

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. 12, 2025

Buckley v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) (unpublished) — affirming district court’s decision that: (1) the FBI properly relied on Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) to withhold records concerning their domestic terrorism investigation of plaintiff-appellant, which concluded without charges, and (2) plaintiff-appellant was ineligible for attorneys’ fees. The Court rejected the argument that Exemption 7 was inapplicable because the records were allegedly compiled for “political reasons,” explaining that circuit precedent requires courts to presume that all investigatory records from law enforcement agencies are compiled for a law enforcement purpose. On fees, the court held that plaintiff-appellant failed to show he was a prevailing party under the catalyst theory. Notably, he failed to raise an argument in district court that earlier-submitted release forms supported his catalyst claim, thus precluding the Court from considering it on appeal.

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 Oct. 10, 2025

Informed Consent Action Network v. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (D.D.C.) — in a case involving access to records about COVID-19 vaccines, denying the requester’s fee motion on entitlement grounds; noting the parties agree that the requester is “eligible” to receive attorney’s fees; explaining that of the four factors to be considered when determining entitlement to a fee award, “the first three . . . weigh slightly in plaintiff’s factor,” but the fourth—i.e., the “reasonableness of the agency’s withholding”—”weighs heavily against plaintiff”; with respect to the fourth factor, concluding the agency’s application of Exemption 6 to withhold the names of CDC personnel was reasonable in light of a perceived “palpable threat” to employee privacy, and danger of harassment, at the time the request was submitted, and an assessment that the asserted public interest in disclosure was minimal.

Popov. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (9th Cir.) (unpublished) — affirming district court’s decision that DHS properly withheld a third party’s Alien File under Exemption 6, noting that plaintiff-appellant failed to substantiate his allegations that the third party had committed any fraud or crimes or that DHS had acted improperly.

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