ICYMI, DOJ skips another FOIA Advisory Committee meeting

The Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy failed to send a representative to the federal FOIA Advisory Committee’s meeting on June 12, 2025, the second consecutive committee meeting OIP has missed since its director was ousted in early March. OIP’s continued absence did not go unnoticed. Of note, OGIS director and Committee Chair Alina Semo jumped into a discussion about a draft recommendation aimed at OIP and remarked that “we obviously have a vacancy on the FOIA Advisory Committee which is occupied by the director of the Office of Information Policy. There is no director currently or acting directing. As I understand it they’re waiting for confirmation of a new associate attorney general to whom OIP staff reports . . . .” FOIA Advisory Committee Meeting, YouTube (June 12, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/live/59PYN88FCpw (45:14-45:38).

The President’s nominee for Associate Attorney General, Stanley Woodward, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 12-10 vote —coincidentally, on June 12, 2025. The bylaws of the FOIA Advisory Committee provide that government members “should”— not must—include “one representative from the Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy” (not necessarily the director) Thus, the Archivist of the United States could lawfully appoint an OIP staff member to temporarily serve on the committee if DOJ were interested in participating (which it clearly is not). Moreover, the Committee’s bylaws do not prevent AOTUS from filling OIP’s traditional seat with an employee from another agency. The FOIA Advisory Committee has lost four government members since its latest term began in September 2024. None have been replaced.

Court opinion issued June 23, 2025

Office of the Fed. Pub. Def. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) U.S. Marshals Service was required to release details about its trial-related security measures because it made “no effort to explain how their withholdings fall within the textual limit of being techniques, procedures, or guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions” under Exemption 7(E); and (2) USMS properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold an internal email because it involved judgment-based selection of facts concerning security staffing; further finding that USMS met foreseeable harm requirement by explaining that disclosure would chill future discussions about judicial security operations.

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 June 20, 2025

Javino v. Hurd (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(D) to withhold the identity of an individual who plaintiff believes provided false information to the FBI about plaintiff’s actions at the U.S Capitol on January 6, 2021; granting summary judgment to the government regarding its search and its withholding of other requested records, because plaintiff failed to object.

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 June 18, 2025

Sanchez Mora v. Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C) — in a case transferred from the Northern District of California, granting the requesters’ motion for reconsideration to reinstate their claim against the Department of Homeland Security; accepting the requesters’ argument that “the transferring court ‘erred in construing FOIA’ too narrowly, as allowing a lawsuit only against ‘the component agency that received the records request’ and not the parent agency of that component”; noting to conclude “otherwise makes little practical difference and would incentivize the submission of duplicate FOIA requests to both parent agencies and any component that might retain responsive records, with concomitant inefficiencies and agency burdens in tracking and processing such duplicate requests.”

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

FOIA News: Right-wing groups kvetch about DOJ's FOIA litigation stances

Trump DOJ Promised Transparency. Conservative Orgs Think It’s Falling Short

By Katelynn Richardson, Daily Caller,

Transparency groups are growing frustrated that the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) is maintaining positions in some cases previously held by the Biden administration.

Organizations like the Oversight Project, Empower Oversight and Judicial Watch are waiting for movement on dozens of pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) cases, expressing disappointment that the DOJ is not giving greater attention to disclosing documents related to what they believe are past examples of government weaponization or misconduct.

Read more here.

More court opinions issued June 13, 2025

Musgrave v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — denying the cross-motions for summary judgment “because they rest on a declaration that addresses the burdens imposed by responding to Parts 4 and 5 of the FOIA request”; noting that, as plaintiff has withdrawn part five of its request, “[t]he court is thus left to speculate about the burdens imposed by Part 4 only”; seemingly granting the agency leave to file ex parte details about “the precise number of employees” at the “Washington and San Francisco field offices,” given plaintiff’s suggestion that “each employee individually . . . conduct email searches.”

Ferrera Parra v. Judicial Conference of the U.S. (D.D.C.) — dismissing without prejudice a pro se plaintiff’s complaint and noting that, inter alia, its FOIA claims remained “underdeveloped”; noting that, while plaintiff “contends . . . ‘[he] submitted multiple lawful FOIA requests’” to the Marshals Service, those requests remain unidentified “in his pleading” and any copies “peppered into his flood of exhibits” are “unmanageable to ascertain”; concluding that “any FOIA claims are deeply conflated with plaintiff’s myriad other grievances.”

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

FOIA News: Marine veteran loses FOIA suit in effort to prove murder plot

Marine veteran loses FOIA suit in effort to prove murder plot

By Jonathan Ellis, The Dakota Scout, June 17, 2025

A retired Marine Corps officer who sought records related to what he claims is a 40-year-old murder attempt lost his case when a federal judge dismissed his lawsuit Friday.

Rory Walsh had sought letters of censure and reprimand he claimed were issued against two Marine Corps general officers. Walsh filed a request for the letters under the federal Freedom of Information Act. He then sued the Department of the Navy in 2023 when the letters were not produced.

Read more here.

FOIA News: More on FOIA delays

Federal government record requests languish — and not just those aimed at DOGE

Washington staff cuts have slowed responses to Freedom of Information Act requests, and the agency engineering many reductions is so far escaping normal disclosure rules.

By Rich Lord, Public Source, June 17, 2025

“Hello, the FOIA office has been placed on admin leave and is unable to respond to any emails,” the April 18 auto-response email indicated.

That request was one of eight submitted by PublicSource in an effort to better understand the impact a new governmental player — the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE — is having on the Pittsburgh region. The effort comes at a time when the public’s stake in federal government decisions and actions is high, but the ability to access records appears to be at a low point.

Federal government documents appear to be even less readily available to citizens, organizations and the press this year than in the recent past, according to three advocates for openness whose organizations regularly work to pry information from public agencies.

Read more here.

Court opinions issued June 13, 2025

Walsh v. Dep't of the Navy (D.S.D.) -- ruling that agency performed adequate search for disciplinary records of two retired Marine Corps generals who allegedly attempted to murder plaintiff in 1985, noting that other courts had “time and time again” found those allegations “to be frivolous.”

Doe v. Burrows (D.D.C.) -- denying pro se plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and upholding its prior decision that plaintiff could not proceed under a pseudonym in his FOIA case against EEOC and DHS over unfulfilled FOIA requests.

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 June 11-12, 2025

June 12, 2025

Huddleston v. FBI (E.D. Tex.) -- denying without prejudice plaintiff’s motion to substitute a third party to continue FOIA lawsuit because plaintiff did not mention third party by name or his purported interest in the requested information “throughout the over four years of litigation,” nor did plaintiff produce evidence that the third party had accepted the proposed substitution as party plaintiff.

June 11, 2025

Viola v. DOJ (D.D.C.) —determining that: (1) FBI performed adequate search for certain records concerning an FBI informant; (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold identifying information about FBI’s special agents and professional staff, as well as other third party individuals; (3) information provided by FBI’s source was impliedly confidential and properly withheld under Exemption 7(D); (4) FBI properly withheld “non-public details about its storage device and identification number used to collect investigatory evidence” under Exemption 7(E); (5) FBI’s categorical withholding of an “informant file” consisting of evidentiary/investigative and administrative materials was proper under Exemption 7(D); and (6) FBI met FOIA’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.