State of Georgia v. Dep’t of Justice (D.C. Cir.) — reversing the district court in principal part and entering judgment in favor of the government; holding, like the Fourth Circuit, that communications exchanged between an agency and private parties can nevertheless satisfy Exemption 5’s “inter-” or “intra-agency” threshold when those communications reflect “attorney work-product” shared “with aligned parties under a common-interest agreement rooted in shared interests and a need for confidentiality”; noting, in response to Georgia’s arguments, that caselaw on the consultant-corollary doctrine, while informative for reaching a functionalist reading of “intra-agency,” does not “reflexively control in the distinct context of this case”; holding further that, aside from two initial emails which predated the "memorialization of . . . [a] common interest agreement,” the remaining records were, in fact, properly covered by the attorney work-product privilege—an issue Georgia did not dispute—and DOJ had not waived that privilege.
Ctr. for Water Sec. & Cooperation v. Envtl. Prot. Agency (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s motion for summary judgment in a case involving records related to enforcement of the Clean Water Act; holding the agency appropriately withhold records—specifically, “spreadsheets containing information about different demographic entities” and their use to draft Financial Capability Assessment guidance—under Exemption 5, in conjunction with the deliberative-process privilege; noting that “population data and similar statistics,” while factual in nature, are here inextricably intertwined with agency analysis that reveals a deliberative decision-making process; holding further that the agency satisfied FOIA’s foreseeable-harm standard, in that it explained disclosure would “‘discourage experimentation’ and make it more difficult for the Agency to complete realistic assessments of possible enforcement policy”
Randhawa v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (E.D. Cal.) — recommending, in a magistrate judge report, in relevant part, that the plaintiffs’ FOIA claim should be dismissed for failure “to plead sufficient facts to establish a basis for relief”; noting plaintiffs never described “what information [they] sought . . . whether documents were provided . . . or how DHS’s response was inadequate”; noting further that plaintiffs’ “vague and conclusory two-sentence FOIA allegations are insufficient to establish a cognizable legal theory,” and that amendment would be futile, as it would not overcome mootness concerns due to plaintiffs’ failure to oppose DHS’s motion to dismiss.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.