Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Labor/WHD, GS 11, location negotiable, closes 4/22/26 (public).
Sup. Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of the Treasury/TIGTA, GS 15, multiple locations, closes 4/28/26 (non-public).
Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Health & Human Serv./CMS, GS 12, Woodlawn, MD, closes 4/29/26 (non-public).
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Dep't. of Agric. (N.D. Cal.) -- holding that: (1) the "reading room" provision of Section 552(a)(2)(D) does not require the agency to post records that have not yet been created, as the statute applies only to records that "have been released" under a prior request and not to "mere possibilities in the future, like the shadows swirling around Dickens’ Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come"; emphasizing that the court is “bound by the plain meaning of the statute” and that it is “quite mistaken to assume… that whatever might appear to further the statute’s primary objective must be the law”; finding further that the plaintiffs failed to identify existing records with enough specificity to compel posting; and (2) the agency improperly withheld borrower names and addresses under Exemptions 3 and 6, because such data fell under the "payment information" exception of 7 U.S.C. § 8791 and because the privacy interests of federal loan recipients were outweighed by public interest; in "open[ing] agency action to the light of public scrutiny"; holding further that the agency properly withheld the underlying substance of producer-provided information under Exemption 3, noting that the statutory protection for such data does not "vanish simply because USDA repeated the information in its own documents."
Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.
On the day before tax day, Lauren Loricchio of Tax Notes appeared on the latest SALT Shaker Podcast, produced by law firm Eversheds Sutherland, to explore how FOIA continues to drive transparency in tax administration, building on a legacy that dates back to a landmark 1972 lawsuit against the IRS.
Informed Consent Action Network v. Food & Drug Admin. (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s motion for an Open America stay and staying litigation for “approximately seven months”; as with other recent cases, pointing to the government’s burdensome production schedule in a case in the Northern District of Texas, where the agency must “produce approximately 9.1 million pages by October 1, 2026”; denying the requester’s motion for discovery into the agency’s “multitrack process because such discovery would simply heighten the burdens on the agency, forcing [it] . . . to expend resources to reconstruct the statute of a queue from nearly three years ago,” and there is no evidence otherwise of bad faith.
Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.
By NARA/OGIS, FOIA Ombuds, Apr. 13, 2026
FOIA Advisory Committee Votes to Approve Two Recommendations
Members of the FOIA Advisory Committee voted to approve two recommendations at their April 2, 2026, meeting. The two recommendations came from the Statutory Reform Subcommittee and are:
Recommendation No. 2026-01: Congress should amend FOIA to establish the FOIA Advisory Committee as a statutory federal advisory committee.
Recommendation No. 2026-02: Congress should amend FOIA to mandate regular publication of agency FOIA logs to contain, at a minimum, 13 fields generally maintained in agency FOIA tracking systems . . . .
Read more here.
[FOIA Advisor’s Ryan Mulvey co-chairs the subcommittee that initiated these recommendations]
Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of the Treasury/OFAC, GS 14, Wash., DC, closes 4/20/26 (non-public).
Supv. Counsel. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., CM 00, Wash., DC, closes 4/22/26 (public).
FOIA Program Manager, Dep’t of the Interior/NPS, GS 12, Philadelphia, PA, closes 4/23/26 (non-public).
Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Commerce/Census, GS 13, Suitland, MD, closes 4/24/26 (non-public).
Coyne v. Nat'l Guard Bureau, Dep't of Def. (E.D. Pa.) -- denying cross-motions for summary judgment where pro se plaintiff sought Inspector General records related to his disputed retirement withdrawal; holding that the agency's declaration failed to establish the adequacy of its search in both completeness and method; holding further that the agency's Vaughn indices were insufficient for failing to describe withheld documents or explain the consequences of disclosure beyond rote recitation of claimed exemptions under Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C); finding further that the agency's segregability showing was inadequate where the declaration offered only a blanket "inextricably intertwined" assertion without document-specific analysis; lastly, entering judgment for the agency on plaintiff's unpleaded Privacy Act claim.
Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.
Hush Blackwell LLP v. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) — following supplemental briefing, granting the government’s renewed motion for summary judgment in a case involving access to final proposals to list foreign corporations on BIS’s export-restrictions list; holding, first, that the agency justified its invocation of Exemption 1 by identifying non-conclusory harms to national security that would result from disclosure, including the revelation of “sensitive collection capabilities and targets of foreign intelligence,” the “scope, methods, and strategic priorities of U.S. export control enforcements,” and other “strategic insights” into “national security decision-making processes”; holding, further, that the agency properly invoked Exemption 3, in conjunction with 50 U.S.C. § 4820(h)(1); reiterating the Court’s previously articulated view that, in light of the 2016 FOIA amendments, “segregation is not required for records properly withheld under exemption 3,” but in any event the agency demonstrated it undertook an adequate segregability review here; rejecting also the requester’s construction of the withholding provision at issue in the Export Control Reform Act of 2018.
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. U.S. Dep't. of Homeland Sec. (S.D.N.Y.) — holding that partial government shutdown did not excuse DHS from complying with court-ordered FOIA production schedule; rejecting government's political question doctrine argument as "risible, if not sanctionable"; noting that DOJ's own contingency plan required agencies to continue court-ordered work during shutdowns as "excepted activity" under the Anti-Deficiency Act; and faulting government for unilaterally declaring a stay without seeking court relief.
Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.
American Oversight v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — in a case concerning access to “internal-training documents given to the DOJ personnel who reviewed and redacted the Epstein files,” denying the requester’s motion for a preliminary injunction ordering complete production before former Attorney General Bondi’s anticipated April 14, 2026 deposition before the House Oversight Committee; agreeing with the agency as to proper interpretation of the first factor of the relevant legal standard, namely, that the requester, “at a minimum, demonstrate its entitlement to expedited processing,” as set out in the FOIA statute; rejecting the requester’s alternative proposal that it only show entitlement to the records, as under this approach “a production injunction would be easier to obtain than an injunction for expedited processing,” which “make[s] little sense”; noting, further, that “no court in this district has ever granted a production preliminary injunction without first finding expedited processing warranted or noting that the Government had already agreed to expedite processing,” and neither has happened here; finally, with respect to irreparable harm, concluding that, while the “requested documents would be highly probative for . . . Bondi’s April 14 deposition,” “[t]here is no reason to think that the information Plaintiff seeks would become stale or irrelevant if produced” at a later date.
Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.