Several agencies have posted their fiscal year 2019 annual FOIA reports in their online reading rooms:
All agencies were required to submit their annual reports to the Office of Information Policy by November 18, 2019. OIP typically releases a summary of the annual reports in May or June.
“The Fugitive:” ICE, Fugitives, and FOIA (Part II)
By Bernard Bell, Yale L. Reg., Jan 20, 2020
The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine
In Ortega-Rodriguez v. U.S., 507 U.S. 234 (1993), the Supreme Court observed that “[i]t has been settled for well over a century that an appellate court may dismiss the appeal of a defendant who is a fugitive from justice during the pendency of his appeal,” id. at 239, citing Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (1876), as its earliest invocation of the doctrine. The Court’s fugitive disentitlement jurisprudence, Bohanan v. Nebraska, 125 U.S. 692 (1887), Eisler v. United States, 338 U.S. 189 (1949), and Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (1970), inter alia, seems to center around cases in which criminal defendants seek to appeal their convictions while at large. The classic cases do not involve efforts to pursue civil litigation while a fugitive from criminal obligations, much less efforts to pursue civil litigation by those who have defaulted on a civil obligation.
Read more here.
“The Fugitive:” ICE, Fugitives, and FOIA (Part I)
By Bernard Bell, Yale J. on Reg., Jan. 18, 2020
This two-part series discusses Smith v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, involving ICE’s policy for responding to FOIA requests made by fugitive aliens. This post discusses the policy’s inconsistency with FOIA Exemption 7(A), which allows agencies to withhold law enforcement records that “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” The second post discusses whether the “fugitive disentitlement doctrine” could justify a policy of refusing to respond to all FOIA requests from fugitive aliens.
Read more here.
Here is the recording of today’s argument in Machado Amadis v. DOJ, which we previewed earlier in the week.
On Friday, January 17th, the D.C. Circuit will hear argument in Machodo Amadis v. DOJ, which concerns records of the State Department’s decision to deny appellant’s visa applications. A notable argument to watch out for is the applicability and scope of the statute’s “foreseeable harm” provision.
Here are the the appellant’s opening and reply briefs; the government’s brief (misnamed “Appellant” instead of “Appellee”); and an amicus brief in support of appellant.
Thanks to Kel McClanahan, appellant’s counsel, for providing copies of the parties’ briefs.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued a vacancy announcement for a Government Information Specialist. The deadline to apply is January 21, 2019.
The Executive Office for United States Attorneys has an opening for a Supervisory Government Information Specialist. The deadline to apply is January 28, 2019.
National Park Service Ripped for ‘Stupid and Bad’ Sudden Refusal of Certain FOIA Requests
By Colin Kalmbacher, Law & Crime, Jan. 13, 2020
The National Park Service is now refusing to service Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted via email—directing the public to use written forms sent by regular mail or faxed instead.
Critics noted the drastic shift in how the public is able access to public information via Twitter late Monday morning.
Washington, D.C.-based NBC reporter Scott MacFarlane broke the news by posting a screenshot of a FOIA denial he recently received from the Department of Interior:
Read more here.
The General Services Administration has an opening for an attorney to serve as the agency’s senior FOIA and Privacy Act attorney. The deadline to apply is January 17, 2020.
The American Society of Access Professionals is hosting its 13th Annual National Training Conference from
May 18-20, 2020, at the Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. Program and registration information is available here.
Sierra Club Asks High Court To Ignore Feds' FOIA Loss Appeal
By Jimmy Hoover, Law360, Jan. 8, 2020
The Sierra Club has asked the Supreme Court to reject the federal government's attempt to shield internal documents concluding that a proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation for power plant cooling was likely to endanger protected species.
Read more here (subscription).