Q. Is a HUD grantee required to give a private citizen an electronic copy of a HUD document?
A. Highly unlikely. In 1980, the Supreme Court decided in Forsham v. Harris that recipients of federal grants are not agencies subject to the FOIA, unless the grantee is subject to "extensive, detailed, and virtually day-to-day supervision" by the federal grantor.
The next Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee meeting will be held on January 19, 2016, according to a notice published today in the Federal Register.
NY court: Targeted killings memos can be kept secret
Larry Neumeister, Associated Press, Nov. 23, 2015
The U.S. government can keep secret various memos related to its legal justification for using drones to kill citizens suspected of terrorism overseas, a federal appeals court said in a decision unsealed Monday.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached its decision in a second round of Freedom of Information Act requests by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times after an earlier request had succeeded in forcing the government to disclose a redacted version of a 2010 41-page legal opinion prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department describing for the Defense Department the legality of targeted drone attacks.
The appeals court said then that prior public disclosures by senior government officials including President Barack Obama necessitated the document's release. The Oct. 22 decision by the 2nd Circuit to keep eight memos secret largely upheld an Oct. 31, 2014 ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan. It remained sealed for a month to provide time for appeal.
Read more here
Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C) -- ruling that the Criminal Division conducted a reasonable search for information related to court-authorized wiretap surveillance in connection with plaintiff's criminal case. The court found that the agency performed a reasonable search and properly withheld seven categories of documents pursuant to the attorney-work-product privilege. Despite prevailing, the government was chided by the court for failing to identify three FOIA lawsuits of plaintiff's criminal co-defendants as "related cases" and for copying 15 pages from its summary judgment motion and pasting them into its reply brief.
Nolen v. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- holding that FBI performed an adequate search for records concerning Martin Droll, a deceased socialist writer and organizer. The court concluded that the agency was not required to search the files of organizations with whom the subject was affiliated, because plaintiff failed to identify those organizations in his request. Additionally, the court held that the FBI field offices located where plaintiff was born and died were not required as a matter of course to search for records.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has granted the government's motion for a hearing en banc in Detroit Free Press v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, which concerns the accessibility of mugshots from the U.S. Marshals Service.
Kohake v. Dep't of the Treasury (6th Cir.) -- affirming lower court's decision that Internal Revenue Service conducted a reasonable search for records concerning the Estate of William Meadors, which allegedly holds vast fortunes to which plaintiff claims she is entitled. In reaching its decision, the Sixth Circuit held that the IRS was not required to search for certain records maintained by a U.S. Attorney's Office or county courthouse.
Am. Civil Liberties Union of N. Cal. v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that FBI failed to show that the attorney-client privilege justified the agency's redactions of 'Human Source Advisory Notices" or the complete withholding of "FAQs for Threat Assessments." The court further found that FBI improperly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold a red-lined version of a "training FAQ," stating that FBI had not demonstrated that "advice about whether a comma should be inserted, word choice, or phrasing would discourage members of the Bureau from providing candid advice about the pros and cons of adopting a policy or practice."
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Slaughter v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (E.D. Pa) -- dismissing case for lack of standing because plaintiff did not submit the FOIA request at issue; rather, the request was submitted by plaintiff's attorney in his own name and failed to mention plaintiff at all.
Glapion v. Castro (D. Colo.) -- concluding that Department of Housing and Urban Development conducted an adequate search and that it properly withheld: (1) disciplinary information of agency employees under Exemption 6, and (2) communications between agency officials pertaining to plaintiff under Exemption 5 (deliberative process and attorney-client privileges). The court also dismissed several claims because plaintiff had failed to administratively appeal the agency's responses.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Mobley v. CIA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision involving requests for records about plaintiff's detention in Yemen. The D.C Circuit upheld the adequacy of the FBI's search, rejecting plaintiff's argument that the agency was required to search certain records systems merely because plaintiff had asked it to do so. The Court also rejected plaintiff's contention that the FBI and CIA had waived Exemption 1 by providing certain information to the Yemeni government, which subsequently provided the information to a party that filed it in court. Further, the Court rejected plaintiff's argument that the FBI had failed to properly classify certain records.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a final rule today that amends its FOIA regulations, which had not been updated since it transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003.
Q. I want to submit one or more FOIA requests to state (Virginia) and federal agencies to determine how many Syrian refugees have been relocated to my state, where they are located, what security vetting has been done, and how the relocation process works. What agencies in Virginia and at the federal level should I submit such a request to and would this information be obtainable under FOIA?
A. The federal agencies that are most involved in the refugee resettlement process are the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security's Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Administration for Children and Families. FOIA contact information for each of these agencies is available here. Before filing requests, you might wish to peruse those agencies' websites (hyperlinked above) to see what information is already publicly available. For example, HHS publishes the number of refugees resettled annually in each state by country of origin. Several U.S. intelligence agencies are involved in security vetting, but you are not likely to gain access to security files via FOIA. Nor in my opinion are you likely to obtain the home addresses of any refugee from any agency (federal or state).
With respect to Virginia, you might consider directing requests to the Governor's Office and/or to the Secretariat of Public Safety and Homeland Security.