FOIA News: Office of the National Cyber Director proposes new FOIA regs

The Office of the National Cyber Director, established by Congress in 2021 and located within the Executive Office of the President at the White House, has proposed its first regulations on public access to agency records under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2026. Public comments are due by May 15, 2026, and must be submitted at regulations.gov.

FOIA News: The VA publishes annual FOIA report

The Department of Veterans Affairs published its annual FOIA report on Friday, March 27, 2026. Here are the key metrics:

• 124,435 requests received, up from 105,725 in FY 2024

• 123,103 requests processed, up from 119,453 in FY 2024

• Request backlog climbed from 1539 in FY 2024 to 3549 in FY 2025, a 130 percent increase

• 1017 appeals received; 764 appeals processed

• Average response time for all perfected requests was 21.5 days for “simple” requests and 22.2 days for “complex” requests.

• Of 570 requests for expedited processing, 80 were granted and 490 were denied

• Of 853 requests for fee waivers, 300 were granted and 553 were denied

• Total costs of $20.3 million; $195k processing fees collected

See the full report in VA’s reading room library.

FOIA News: The final four

As of 9:25am today, four departments have yet to post their annual reports: Agriculture; Health & Human Services; Homeland Security; and Justice. The deadline to post was March 1, 2026.

Court opinions issued Mar. 24, 2026

Watkins Law & Advocacy, PLLC v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) — on remand from Watkins Law & Advocacy, PLLC v. Dep’t of Justice, 78 F.4th 436 (D.C. Cir. 2023), in a case involving access to records about a VA background check system intended to identify veterans and benefits beneficiaries as “barred from possessing firearms” due to deficient “mental capacity,” granting the agency’s motion for summary judgment; holding, firstly, that the agency properly withheld most records under Exemption 5 and the attorney-client privilege, as they reflected, inter alia, “legal advice . . . regarding compliance with the Brady Act information sharing provisions” when reporting information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; noting the agency complied with the D.C. Circuit’s instructions for remand vis-a-vis the specificity of its Vaughn index; rejecting use of attorney-client privilege for two documents, which after in camera review, were determined to lack any confidential information transmitted between an attorney and client; holding, further, that the agency’s invocation of the attorney work-produce privilege is “untimely” as it was only raised on remand and no “extraordinary circumstances” justified its assertion so late in the proceedings; finally, concluding the agency properly applied the deliberative-process privilege to all records not otherwise properly withheld under the attorney-client privilege; explaining these records related to agency deliberations regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Brady Act; intriguingly, omitting any discussion of the foreseeable-harm standard.

Achey v. Exec. Office of U.S. Att’ys (D.D.C.) — in a case brought by a pro se inmate-requester seeking access to records of his own case, granting summary judgment to the agency “in all respects expect insofar as it must produce [to the requester] an electronic copy” of one of the documents at issue because it was requested “in an electronic format” and “located” by the agency in an electronic format during a digital search; noting that “[a]ny downstream question of how the Bureau of Prisons may ‘decide[] to limit or prohibit access to the material’” sent to the requested by email “is a separate matter ‘not before this Court.’”

Pickering v. Cent. Intelligence Agency (W.D.N.Y.) — denying the agency’s motion for reconsideration of an order for in camera review in a case involving the CIA’s invocation of Glomar, in connection with Exemption 1, refusing to acknowledge or deny the existence of an FBI Form FD-302; nevertheless modifying somewhat the procedures for in camera submission to avoid defeating the purpose of the Glomar doctrine.

Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.

Jobs, jobs, jobs: Double your pleasure

Att’y-Adviser, Dep’t of Justice/OIP, GS 12-15, Wash., DC, closes 4/7/26 (public).

Gen. Att’y, Sec. & Exchange Comm’n, SK 14, Wash., DC, closes 4/9/26 (public).

FOIA News: FOIA Advisor's Allan Blutstein Featured in Tax Notes FOIA Findings Newletter

FOIA Findings

By Lauren Loricchio, FOIA Findings, Mar. 26, 2026

Since March happens to include Sunshine Week — a nonpartisan project designed to raise awareness about the importance of open government, transparency, and the public’s right to access public records — we’ll take a look at how the IRS and Treasury are doing in meeting their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.  

…

Allan Blutstein, a Republican opposition researcher and FOIA attorney, said that given the loss of FOIA staff in 2025, including reviewing attorneys, he wouldn’t be surprised if the quality of agency responses has declined.  

“From my time in the government, the prevailing view was that it was much better to be late than wrong,” said Blutstein, who previously worked as a FOIA attorney at Treasury and the Justice Department.  

“Given how few requesters file appeals — and even fewer litigate — along with the pressure to keep up with incoming requests, I can see how some offices might be tempted to shift toward speed despite the risks,” Blutstein said.  

Read more here.

Court opinions issued Mar. 23, 2026

Jigsaw Productions, Inc. v. U.S. Secs. & Exch. Comm’n (D.D.C.) — in a case concerning access to a recording of Elon Musk’s interview with SEC civil investigators, denying the agency’s motion for summary judgment and ordering release in part; rejecting the agency’s invocation of Exemptions 6 and 7(C) for lack of any substantial privacy interest, “much less any foreseeable harm to Musk’s privacy interests that would flow from disclosure”; noting the “contents of the interview have already been publicly released” in transcript form, the SEC has publicized its civil enforcement efforts, and “Musk has publicly discussed the SEC matter on national television.”

Informed Consent Action Network v. Food & Drug Admin. (D.D.C.) — granting in part the government’s motion for an Open America stay; noting, as many recent stay orders, that the FDA has been compelled by a judge in the Northern District of Texas “to produce approximately 9.1 million pages of COVID-19 vaccine records within a highly compressed timeframe,” and this “unprecedently demanding production schedule . . . far exceeds a ‘predictable’ agency workload and thus constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of FOIA”; concluding the agency has also “exercised due diligence in respond to the FOIA requests it receives, including the one at issue in this case.”

Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.

Jobs, jobs, jobs: Four to get ready

Supv. Paralegal Specialist, Dep’t of Homeland Sec./ICE, GS 14, Wash., DC, closes 3/30/26 (non-public).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs/VHA, GS 12, Butler, PA, closes 4/1/26 (non-public).

Att’y-Advisor, Exec. Office of the Pres./USTR, GS 15, Wash., DC, closes 4/6/26 (public).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Veterans/VHA, GS 12, Long Beach, CA, closes 4/10/26 (non-public).

FOIA News: OIP Announces Additional Training Dates

OIP Announces New Additional FOIA Training Dates for Fiscal Year 2026

DOJ/OIP, FOIA Post, Mar. 25, 2026

Today, the Office of Information Policy (OIP) announces new dates for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) training for April through July.  As part of its responsibility to encourage agency compliance with the FOIA, OIP offers numerous training opportunities throughout the year for agency FOIA professionals and individuals with FOIA responsibilities.

These courses are designed to offer training opportunities for personnel from all stages of the FOIA workforce, from new hires to the experienced FOIA professionals or FOIA managers.  OIP will continue to offer virtual training sessions that will be taught in real-time by OIP instructors.  As we move into the Spring of Fiscal Year 2026, we are pleased to announce these virtual training courses, which are also listed on OIP’s Training page.

The courses and dates scheduled for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2026 are:

Introduction to the Freedom of Information Act
April 8, 2026

Processing a Request from Start to Finish 
April 22, 2026

Procedural Requirements, and Fee and Fee Waivers Training
May 6, 2026

Litigation Training
May 13, 2026

Administrative Appeals, FOIA Compliance, and Customer Service Training
May 20, 2026

Exemption 1 and Exemption 7 Training
June 3, 2026

Exemption 4 and Exemption 5 Training
June 17, 2026

Privacy Considerations Training
July 8, 2026

Continuing FOIA Education Training
July 22, 2026

***

Read the rest of OIP’s post, including registration information, here.

Court opinions issued Mar. 19 & 20, 2026

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.