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.