FOIA Advisor

FOIA News: CREW allowed limited discovery in DOGE FOIA case

FOIA News (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

Judge Christopher Cooper has granted in part a motion for discovery in Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service, No. 25-0511 (D.D.C.), perhaps the most prominent case to challenge DOGE’s status of an “agency” under the FOIA. The limited discovery order is intended to allow CREW to gather information about “USD’S influence and operations for purposes of determining whether it is exercising the requisite authority” to qualify as a “agency.”

Although limited jurisdictional discovery is permitted in FOIA cases, it is quite rare. Discovery into DOGE’s organization and operations, however, has been granted in several other ongoing cases involving other laws, such as the Privacy Act. Here, Judge Cooper noted that, contrary to the government’s arguments, the DOGE-related Executive Orders, “far from resolving the question against CREW,” instead suggest “that USDS is exercising substantial independent authority,” and news reports further suggest how that authority is being exercised “across vast areas of the federal government.”

At the same time, the court noted that several topics—such as aspects of DOGE’s record-keeping policies—are not germane to the legal issues at hand in the FOIA litigation. The court will disallow an interrogatory seeking a list of the DOGE Administrators from the start of the current Administration, and will not require disclosure of DOGE visitor logs, but it will require the entity to identify all classified or sensitive information systems its has sought to access. Of note, the court expressed how it was “somewhat baffled” by DOGE’s claim that it does “not own[]” the “@DOGE X account.”

FOIA Advisor will continue to report on this case as it develops.

Court opinion issued Apr. 11, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Allan BlutsteinComment

Outside Legal Counsel PLC v. Transp. Sec. Admin. (E.D. Mich.) - - denying pro se plaintiff-attorney’s request for $402 in litigation costs because TSA showed that it meaningfully responded to plaintiff’s request once received and plaintiff’s lawsuit did not change the agency’s position or cause the release of records; declining to opine on whether the Sixth Circuit correctly decided that pro se FOIA plaintiffs who are attorneys are barred from collecting attorney’s fees.

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 Apr. 9, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Allan BlutsteinComment

Democracy Forward Found. v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction that sought expedited processing of reduction-in-force and reorganization plans maintained by OMB and OPM, as well as production of “approved” plans by a date certain; reasoning that plaintiff failed to show it was entitled to the “extraordinarily rare” remedy because, among other things, there was no “imminent event” indicating that the requested records would become stale if released though the normal FOIA process.

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

FOIA News: DOGE ordered to process CREW's FOIA request at accelerated rate

FOIA News (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

Yesterday, Judge Christopher Cooper entered a minute order instructing the U.S. DOGE Service to start processing records responsive to a FOIA request filed by Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington. That request is the subject of ongoing, high-profile litigation in Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service, No. 25-0511 (D.D.C.). The complete order can be found on the docket, available here.

Judge Cooper has ordered DOGE (and OMB) to process CREW’s requests “at a rate of 1000 pages per month,” which is above the now-standard 500 pages. Despite ongoing briefing concerning DOGE’s status as an “agency” under the FOIA, the district court reasoned that processing could proceed given its previous ruling that DOGE “is likely subject to FOIA,” and any other result would result in further “processing delays” down the road. Importantly, Judge Cooper noted the government need not “produce any documents,” but only process them. The Court justified accelerated processing based on its finding that the records at issue are “important” and “of the highest national concern,” especially for “ongoing public and congressional debates.” CREW also successfully argued for expedited processing in its initial motion for preliminary relief.

Interestingly, in response to the government’s arguments about the lack of any FOIA apparatus at DOGE, the court explained there is “no reason why the existing FOIA office at OMB, or those [offices] elsewhere within the Executive Office of the President, could not assist with processing[.]”

Finally, the court indicated it “might entertain a request for a higher processing rate should it be satisfied that CREW” has worked to narrow its request further, and if “production”—or, perhaps, as the Court likely intended to say, processing updates from the government—are “yielding meaningful results.”

FOIA Advisor has previously reported on updates in this case, and it will continue to do so.

Court opinion issued Apr. 8, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Allan BlutsteinComment

Greenspan v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- in case seeking investigative records about named individuals who operated a heroin ring in Chicago in the 1990s, ruling that: (1) DEA was precluded from using Glomar response regarding one named individual because DOJ publicly filed an IRS affidavit in a forfeiture matter that expressly acknowledged DEA’s investigation of same individual; (2) both the DEA and FBI were precluded from using Glomar responses with respect to a second named individual (currently Nigeria’s president), because the above-referenced IRS affidavit acknowledged that that individual was criminally investigated by those agencies, among others; and (3) CIA’s Glomar response concerning the Nigerian president was not waived by the presence of documents in the agency’s FOIA Reading Room that generally addresses Nigeria’s involvement with heroin narcotrafficking during the mid-1980s.

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

FOIA News: D.C. Circuit to hear argument on OLC legal opinions

FOIA News (2025)Allan BlutsteinComment

On April 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear a FOIA argument in Campaign for Accountability v. DOJ, No. 24-5163 (D.C. Cir.).

The issue on appeal is whether DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel has an obligation under FOIA’s “reading room” provision, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2), to affirmatively disclose certain legal opinions. The underlying decision authored by now-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson held that none of the categories of OLC opinions identified by plaintiff plausibly qualified for affirmative disclosure, except for opinions that resolve disputes between federal agencies.

A livestream of three cases on the court’s calendar will begin at 9:30am EDT. The panel will include Judges Srinivasan, Rao, and Pan.

FOIA Commentary: Chevron, Loper, and Exemption 3

FOIA Commentary (2025)Kevin SchmidtComment

FOIA Advisor’s Ryan Mulvey wrote the following article, which was published in the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog.

Sunshine Week, Loper Bright, and FOIA

Ryan P. Mulvey, Notice & Comment, Apr. 8, 2025

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is codified with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as part of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, and FOIA law is uncontroversially considered a subset of administrative law.  At the same time, FOIA is unique, with its own judicial review provision and standards, as well as rather unconventional litigation practice.  Some administrative law practitioners might be surprised to learn the Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and its overruling of Chevron deference, could be relevant to FOIA.  For that reason, and to mark last month’s celebration of Sunshine Week, I would like to explore how Loper Bright will impact FOIA jurisprudence, specifically with respect to judicial review of agency use of Exemption 3.

Read the rest here.

Court opinion issued Apr. 4, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Allan BlutsteinComment

Sanders v. FBI (W.D. Wis.) -- concluding that: (1) FBI’s search for records concerning plaintiff was inadequate because the agency failed to explain why it was reasonable to search only its Central Records System; it neglected to use reasonable variations of plaintiff’s name; and it neglected to explain why its initial search yielded no records and its second (seemingly identical) search located three pages; and (2) FBI did not adequately justify its Exemption 7(C) Glomar response to portion of plaintiff’s request that sought records mentioning plaintiff and various third parties, and remarking that it wasn’t clear why redactions wouldn’t sufficiently protect third parties’ privacy interests.

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