Evans Law PLLC v. DOJ (D. Colo.) -- finding that: (1) DOJ’s search for records about Hunter Biden and James Biden’s foreign contacts adequate, noting it reasonably covered the relevant offices and records as of the search date and wasn’t required to seek documents created later in the Office of Special Counsel; (2) DOJ properly withheld portions of emails and an internal memorandum under Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), the Bank Secrecy Act, the National Security Act, and the Internal Revenue Code; (3) DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege to withhold emails and the memo, but charts were not covered because they were prepared for presidential transition purposes, not in anticipation of litigation; and (4) DOJ properly relied on Exemptions 7(A), 7(C), and 7(E) to withhold records and its withholdings met the foreseeable harm standard “absent any argument to the the contrary” from plaintiffs.
Protect the Pub.’s Trust v. NLRB (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment and following in camera review, ruling that NLRB properly withheld portions of an ethics memo under Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege, as those sections were drafted in anticipation of litigation concerning the Board’s Joint Employer Rule.
Chelmowski v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that EPA’s searches for plaintiff’s two “FOIA-on-FOIA” requests were only partially adequate, because they focused on individual employees’ email accounts without fully explaining why other records or repositories were not searched; further, EPA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process and attorney-client privileges) and Exemption 6, and the court did not require a separate finding of foreseeable harm.
Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.