Court opinions issued Mar. 23, 2026

Jigsaw Productions, Inc. v. U.S. Secs. & Exch. Comm’n (D.D.C.) — in a case concerning access to a recording of Elon Musk’s interview with SEC civil investigators, denying the agency’s motion for summary judgment and ordering release in part; rejecting the agency’s invocation of Exemptions 6 and 7(C) for lack of any substantial privacy interest, “much less any foreseeable harm to Musk’s privacy interests that would flow from disclosure”; noting the “contents of the interview have already been publicly released” in transcript form, the SEC has publicized its civil enforcement efforts, and “Musk has publicly discussed the SEC matter on national television.”

Informed Consent Action Network v. Food & Drug Admin. (D.D.C.) — granting in part the government’s motion for an Open America stay; noting, as many recent stay orders, that the FDA has been compelled by a judge in the Northern District of Texas “to produce approximately 9.1 million pages of COVID-19 vaccine records within a highly compressed timeframe,” and this “unprecedently demanding production schedule . . . far exceeds a ‘predictable’ agency workload and thus constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of FOIA”; concluding the agency has also “exercised due diligence in respond to the FOIA requests it receives, including the one at issue in this case.”

Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.

Jobs, jobs, jobs: Four to get ready

Supv. Paralegal Specialist, Dep’t of Homeland Sec./ICE, GS 14, Wash., DC, closes 3/30/26 (non-public).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs/VHA, GS 12, Butler, PA, closes 4/1/26 (non-public).

Att’y-Advisor, Exec. Office of the Pres./USTR, GS 15, Wash., DC, closes 4/6/26 (public).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Veterans/VHA, GS 12, Long Beach, CA, closes 4/10/26 (non-public).

FOIA News: OIP Announces Additional Training Dates

OIP Announces New Additional FOIA Training Dates for Fiscal Year 2026

DOJ/OIP, FOIA Post, Mar. 25, 2026

Today, the Office of Information Policy (OIP) announces new dates for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) training for April through July.  As part of its responsibility to encourage agency compliance with the FOIA, OIP offers numerous training opportunities throughout the year for agency FOIA professionals and individuals with FOIA responsibilities.

These courses are designed to offer training opportunities for personnel from all stages of the FOIA workforce, from new hires to the experienced FOIA professionals or FOIA managers.  OIP will continue to offer virtual training sessions that will be taught in real-time by OIP instructors.  As we move into the Spring of Fiscal Year 2026, we are pleased to announce these virtual training courses, which are also listed on OIP’s Training page.

The courses and dates scheduled for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2026 are:

Introduction to the Freedom of Information Act
April 8, 2026

Processing a Request from Start to Finish 
April 22, 2026

Procedural Requirements, and Fee and Fee Waivers Training
May 6, 2026

Litigation Training
May 13, 2026

Administrative Appeals, FOIA Compliance, and Customer Service Training
May 20, 2026

Exemption 1 and Exemption 7 Training
June 3, 2026

Exemption 4 and Exemption 5 Training
June 17, 2026

Privacy Considerations Training
July 8, 2026

Continuing FOIA Education Training
July 22, 2026

***

Read the rest of OIP’s post, including registration information, here.

Court opinions issued Mar. 19 & 20, 2026

Mar. 19, 2026

JG Law, PLLC v. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s motion for summary judgment; ruling, in relevant part, that Exemptions 3 and 7(E) apply to the records at issue; holding that Exemption 7(E) covers law-enforcement database codes found in certain immigration records; holding further that Exemption 3, in conjunction with Section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, protect records reflecting the State Department’s adjudication of U.S. visa applications; rejecting the requester’s argument that the agencies’ Vaughn index either lacked sufficient detail or failed to provide information concerning segregability.

Mid.-Atl. Innocence Project v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation (D.D.C.) — granting in part and denying in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in a case involving claims under the FOIA and Privacy Act; in relevant part, rejecting the agency’s invocation of Exemption 3, in conjunction with the Child Victims’ and Child Witnesses’ Rights Act, as the underlying withholding statute’s reference to “criminal proceedings” is best read to refer only to proceedings in federal court, rather than the state-court matters implicated by the records at issue; rejecting also the agency’s use of Exemption 7(C) to redact the identities of testifying witnesses, other government witnesses, and a prosecutor, as those names were disclosed in open court during trial and are already discoverable through review of the relevant court transcripts; of note, with respect to Exemption 7(C) and the foreseeable-harm standard, rejecting the agency’s analysis for failing to account for the age of the records and the “highly speculative” nature of potential reputational risks to these third parties if the records were disclosed; concluding, however, that the agency properly invoked Exemption 7(D), and rejecting the requester’s “official acknowledgement” argument; finally, rejecting both parties’ argument with respect to the use of Exemption 7(F)

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mich. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t (D.D.C.) — denying the government’s motion to dismiss in an Administrative Procedure Act case challenging a final rule prohibiting state and local government entities from disclosing records related to ICE detainees on grounds that such records are under the federal government’s legal control; rejecting the government’s argument that the FOIA provides an adequate alternative remedy in lieu of the APA; noting that when plaintiff has tried to request records covered by the regulatory disclosure restriction from the federal government, the agency lacked any mechanism for obtaining records obtained by state and local entities, such as county jails.

Mar. 20, 2026

Dhakal v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation (D.D.C.) — in a case brought by a pro se requester seeking access to records about himself, granting the government’s motion for summary judgment; concluding the agency conducted an adequate search, properly applied Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E), and justified its various Glomar responses (citing Exemptions 1, 3, 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F)); addressing also the agency’s use of exemptions under the Privacy Act; finally, agreeing with the agency that it undertook reasonable efforts to segregate out non-exempt information from the records at issue.

Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.

FOIA News: Obituary published honoring transparency leader Diana Fuentes

Remembering Diana R. Fuentes

Michael Morisy, Muck Rock (Mar. 23, 2026)

The journalism and transparency communities lost a true leader and friend with the passing of Diana R. Fuentes, executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors. IRE shared that she passed suddenly this past Friday.

She was an inspiring presence, representing not just IRE but the power of a free press and an informed public. She consistently championed the right to know, the right to report and the need for newsrooms to better reflect their communities. She brought her energy and optimism to bear on strengthening and expanding the community of journalists, as well as helping make sure that the next generation had access to the resources, training and support they need to do their work ethically and effectively.

Over the years, her thoughtfulness and enthusiasm touched MuckRock’s staff and community in many ways, whether in spearheading new training opportunities or connecting with journalists around the country to help tackle critical transparency challenges. Shortly before her death, Fuentes joined us at Sunshine Fest, moderating a panel that shared insights from veteran reporters on how to make the most of public records laws.

Our thoughts are with Fuentes’ family, colleagues and the many people she has inspired through an incredible career.

***

Read the original post here.

IRS’s original press release can be found here.

FOIA News: ICYMI, Ninth Circuit hears arguments on USS Liberty report

The USS Liberty FOIA Lawsuit and the Fight Over a Secret 1967 Report

By Haley Fuller, Military.com, Mar. 21, 2026

Nearly six decades after Israeli forces attacked the U.S. Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty during the Six-Day War, a lawsuit is attempting to force the release of a still-secret congressional report about the incident. The case, brought by journalist Michelle Kinnucan under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeks records that could shed light on what the U.S. government knew about the June 8, 1967, attack on the Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded approximately 174 others.

Oral arguments in the case were held on March 9 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where judges heard arguments over whether the report is a congressional record exempt from FOIA or an agency record subject to public disclosure.

Read more here.

FOIA News: OPM withdraws 2008 proposed regulation

The Office of Personnel Management has withdrawn a proposed rule issued in July 2008 to amend its FOIA regulations, according to a notice issued today in the Federal Register. OPM plans to revise its FOIA regulations “in the near future to align with modern capabilities for submission and processing of FOIA requests.”

FOIA News: DOGE seeks to dodge FOIA discovery

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Halt DOGE Inquiry

By Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg News, Mar. 23, 2026

The Trump administration asked the US Supreme Court to block a government watchdog group from questioning a senior official and obtaining internal records about the Department of Government Efficiency project once led by Elon Musk.

The March 18 request by the Justice Department is part of a long-running legal fight with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is seeking to uncover information about DOGE’s efforts last year to drastically cut federal spending and fire thousands of government workers.

The justices intervened in the same case last year in favor of the administration, halting CREW’s fact-finding push. But the case was sent back to a federal appeals court, which allowed CREW’s requests for documents and testimony to proceed after the liberal-leaning organization narrowed some of its lines of inquiry.

Read more here.

Court opinions issued Mar. 16 & 18, 2026

Mar. 16, 2026

Heritage Found. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C.) — in a case concerning, in relevant part, “300,382 potentially responsive pages” of records, denying the government’s motion for summary judgment and granting in part the requester’s cross-motion; rejecting the agency’s argument that it not process the potentially responsive material because the request at issue was “unreasonably described”; explaining “the request was clear enough for the Department to locate responsive documents from some of its offices without issue”; rejecting also the agency’s claim that processing would be unduly burdensome, and noting the fact “a FOIA request implicates a large quantity of documents is insufficient, on its own, to establish that [processing] is unduly burdensome”; concluding the government failed to offer any “good reason why further search term filtering and removal of false positives cannot significantly reduce the burden of the search”; noting with approval the requester’s argument that the agency failed “to reasonably refine its searches,” such as by using “connector search terms,” or making use of “an eDiscovery tool”; ordering the agency to review a sample of the pages at issue, propose exclusionary search terms, negotiate with the requester, and run another search.

Mar. 18, 2026

Judicial Watch v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — in a consolidated case involving requests from Judicial Watch, the Heritage Foundation, and various press outlets for access to audio recordings of President Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, denying Heritage’s motion to strike a government declaration and for leave to engage in discovery vis-a-vis the parties’ dispute over plaintiffs’ eligibility for attorney’s fees; with respect to the motion to strike the government declaration filed in opposition to a fee motion, concluding Heritage’s motion “is procedurally improper” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and, in any case, unsupported by “sufficient basis”; rejecting also Heritage’s motion for discovery; noting how “neither party is aware of any case granting discovery in a FOIA fee dispute”; explaining moreover that Heritage failed to demonstrate bad faith, either in arguing that the declarant lacked requisite personal knowledge and relied on hearsay, or by challenging the veracity of specific factual claims; noting, in closing, that Heritage’s “specific requests for discovery are deficient.”

Judicial Watch v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — in the same case as above, setting out a magistrate’s recommendation that the district court deny the parties’ motions for attorney’s fees under the “catalyst theory”; on the question of eligibility, concluding the Heritage Foundation “established only that it substantially caused the release of the second recording of the Biden-Hur Interview, but not the first recording,” and that CNN and other press requesters had “not established eligibility on any basis . . . put forward”; explaining the release of the second recording appeared to be prompted by a request from counsel for the Heritage Foundation, as memorialized in one of the parties’ past joint status reports, and rejecting DOJ’s argument that such release was merely “de minimis”; further recommending that Heritage was not entitled to a fee reward despite the “significant public interest in the release of the records,” and Heritage’s status as a non-profit requester involved with the dissemination of information, because the government’s initial decision to withhold the recordings under executive privilege, as asserted by the Biden White House, was not unreasonable; stating that even if Heritage were entitled to fees, its fee award should be “zero” because it “enjoyed meager success” and did not substantiate its work or costs on the specific efforts that led to release of the second recording.

Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.

Jobs, jobs, jobs: Not the final four

Gov’t info. Specialist, Dep’t of the Air Force, GS 9, Maxwell AFB, AL, closes 3/26/26 (non-public).

Gov’t info. Specialist, Nat’l Science Found., GS 14, Alexandria, VA, closes 3/30/26 (non-public).

Gov’t info. Specialist, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs/VHA, GS 12, Salt Lake City, UT, closes 3/30/26 (non-public).

Att’y-Advisor, Dep’t of Justice/OIP, GS-12-15, Wash., DC, closes Apr. 7, 2026 (public).