Court opinion issued Jan. 23. 2017

W. Arms v. United States (W.D. Wash.) -- deciding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: (1) violated FOIA by failing to produce records for 20 months; (2) performed a reasonable search for response records; (3) properly withheld certain firearms records pursuant to Exemption 3 (Consolidated Appropriations Acts, 2005-2012) and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege).  The court further found that plaintiff was eligible for attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

FOIA News: Journalists collaborating on FOIA and Trump

Journalists around the country are joining a Slack channel devoted to FOIA and Trump

By Kristen Hare, Poynter, Jan. 25, 2017

A few days before President Trump's inauguration, MuckRock opened up a Slack channel to help journalists better cover him and his administration.

As of Wednesday, 250 people signed up. Most are journalists, about half from national newsrooms and half from local newsrooms around the country.

"Anytime we have a new administration, there's turnover and there are changes," said Michael Morisy, MuckRock's co-founder. "I always think it's important for reporters to get an understating of what that new administration's priorities are. I think that's true no matter who's taking office."

Read more here.

Q&A: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer

Q.  Am I able to file a FOIA to find out who submitted one on me?

A.  Yes.  Courts have held that FOIA requesters have no general expectations of privacy regarding their identities. Therefore, you may request an agency's FOIA "log" that lists each request received, and/or seek copies of the relevant requests themselves.  Note that personal information about a FOIA requester, such as a home address or telephone number, is likely to withheld.  

FOIA News: Immigration judges compromised by inadequate redactions

The DOJ Accidentally Doxxed These Immigration Judges

The Department of Justice thought it had adequately redacted the names of immigration judges involved in complaints in a recent response to a FOIA request. It didn’t, and now it might be sued.

By Betsy Woodruff, The Daily Beast, Jan. 24, 2017

In the final days of the Obama administration, an immigration attorney based in Long Island made a remarkable discovery: that the Justice Department accidentally doxxed some of its most powerful employees.

The mistake has implications for a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the department is embroiled in, and it could get the DOJ sued by judges it employs. On top of that, it also has the potential to change the way we think about how the government decides who gets deported.

This mistake happened in early 2015, when the Justice Department released a trove of heavily redacted documents on complaints filed with the department about immigration judges.

Read more here.

Court opinions issued Jan. 18 & Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

Hetznecker v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (E.D. Pa.) -- in case concerning "Occupy Philly" movement, denying government's motion to reconsider court order requiring agencies to submit documents for in camera review. 

Jan. 18, 2017

Dibacco v. U.S. Dep't of the Army (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the Army conducted adequate searches in response to plaintiff's 30-year old requests regarding Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, and that the CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold certain information from Army records. 

Huntington v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the U.S. Patent & Trade Office failed to conduct a reasonable search for records concerning confidential program, and that USPTO properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege).   

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Def. (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) government failed to provide sufficient information to permit court to determine whether photographs of Abu Ghraib detainees were protected by Exemption 3 ( Protected National Security Documents Act); and (2) Exemption 7(F) did not protect photographs from disclosure because government provided a "vague and unlimited" description as to who was endangered.

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that DOJ properly withheld a 2003 memorandum regarding common commercial service agreements pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3.  

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Q&A: Snap out of it

Q.  Why would I be contacted by the USDA letting me know that info has been requested regarding my Food and Nutrition Services sales for my store and will be released to the general public?  I'm dumbfounded.

A.  In November 2016, a federal court ruled that USDA was required under FOIA to release the annual sales amounts that retailers earn by participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  Here is one of several news articles that summarizes the court's decision.  

Court opinion issued Jan. 17, 2017

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) with the exception of a single email, DOE properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold certain contract provisions and contract strategy of company investigated by agency's Inspector General for illegally using taxpayer funds to engage in lobbying activities; (2) DOE properly withheld sensitive national security information pursuant to Exemptions 3, 7(E), and 7(F); (3) DOE failed to provide sufficient information to permit court to determine whether Exemption 7(C) protects identities of company employees, DOE employees who serve at GS-15 level and below, and individuals interviewed during DOE's investigation; and (4) DOE properly used Exemption 6 to withhold identities of certain low-level contractor employees and of targets of company's lobbying strategy. 

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

FOIA News: ACLU targets President Trump

The ACLU Announces Mass FOIA For Donald Trump’s Business Conflicts

The civil liberties group laid out a seven-point plan to protect Americans’ rights in the Trump era.

By Paul Blumenthal, The Huffington Post, Jan. 20, 2017

Moments before Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 45th president of the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a massive Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to his multi-billion dollar business and conflicts of interest.

The civil liberties group is requesting documents from the Office of Government Ethics, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management. The ACLU also released a seven-point plan explaining how it will challenge Trump in the next four years.

Read more here.

FOIA News: Labor Department amends FOIA regulations

The Department of Labor published a final rule to revise and update its FOIA regulations in today's issue of the Federal Register.  The agency is streamlining several procedural provisions and incorporating changes introduced by the OPEN Government Act of 2007 and the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.  The agency received six comments after publishing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 17, 2016.  The new regulations are effective on January 23, 2017.

FOIA News: ACUS publishes new FOIA regulations

The Administrative Conference of the United States published a final rule implementing new FOIA regulations in today's issue of the Federal Register. These revisions are required to comply with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The agency did not previously solicit public comment, but it intends to withdraw the rule for further modification if "significant adverse comment is received by February 22, 2017."  The rule is otherwise effective on March 14, 2017.