Nov. 26, 2025
Shapiro v. SSA (2nd Cir.) -- reversing and vacating district court’s rulings that plaintiff was entitled to a refund of agency’s administrative processing costs and an award of attorneys’ fees and litigations costs; holding that the Social Security Act’s cost-reimbursement provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1306(c), supersedes the FOIA’s 2007 amendment that limits fees for untimely agency responses; further holding that plaintiff’s request for records about how it decides whether migraines and other headache conditions qualify for disability benefits was not “directly related” to the administration of an SSA program and therefore allowed SSA to charge plaintiff the full costs of processing fees; and concluding that because plaintiff did not obtain any meaningful relief beyond the district court’s erroneous fee decisions, he did not “substantially prevail” and was ineligible for attorneys’ fees or costs.
Nov. 25, 2025
Shapiro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in a painfully long 123-page opinion, granting in part and denying in part the parties’ motions for summary judgment concerning multiple requests to the FBI and OIP submitted between 2012 and 2017; determining that: (1) FBI did not justify its claim that two of plaintiff’s requests were improper or unduly burdensome; (2) OIP adequately searched for responsive records, but two of three challenged FBI searches were unreasonable because the agency failed to perform a full-text ECF search for records that merely mentioned or referred to the requested file, the FBI’s explanations for numerous missing serialized documents were insufficient, and the FBI inadequately searched for attachments referenced in produced documents; (3) FBI properly relied on Exemption 3 to withhold information covered by the Pen Register Act and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), but its justification for using the National Security Act was too conclusory; (4) FBI’s declarations were too vague and relied on labels like “draft” for one letter and an analytical report that were redacted under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; (5) FBI failed to justify its use of Exemption 7(A) because it did not show that the relevant investigations were actually pending or explain how disclosure would interfere with them; (6) FBI properly relied on implied confidentiality under Exemption 7(D) for foreign government agencies, third-party individuals, and local law enforcement agencies based on the seriousness of the crimes, the sources’ proximity to the investigations, and the risk of reprisal. but the agency provided only conclusory statements for its claims of express assurances of confidentiality; (7) FBI did not sufficiently demonstrate the applicability of Exemption (E) to case file numbers, but properly invoked the exemption to withhold Computer Analysis Response Team reports; database information and printouts; documents revealing the focus of specific FBI investigations; identity and/or locations of FBI or joint units, squads, and divisions; targets, dates, and scope of surveillance; tactical information contain in operational plans (except for historical staffing information for 1963 church bombing); undercover operations, collection and analysis of information, and operational directives.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.
