March 2, 2026
Slaughter v. Dep’t of the Air Force (D.D.C.) — ordering the agency to file supplemental declarations concerning the adequacy of its search for records, but granting the its motion for summary judgment as to the withholding of a video under Exemption 1; noting how “[t]he government has not provided details regarding the scope or methods of the initial search that was conducted before [the requester] filed suit, nor has it attempted to defend the adequacy of that search”; rejecting the agency’s argument that “supplemental searches conducting after this litigation began fulfilled its FOIA obligations”; with respect to Exemption 1, agreeing with the requester that the agency’s declaration is lacking in its description of “what portion of the information . . . is non-exempt and how that material is dispersed throughout” the video, but “binding D.C. Circuit precedent hold that the Court is to presume . . . no intelligible segments of non-exempt information can be reasonably segregated.’”
Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Resp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency (D.D.C.) — in a pair of consolidated cases regarding records about suspected chemical contamination, and a reverse-FOIA claim to block their disclosure, granting the plaintiff’s motion to complete the administrative record; concluding the agency must include “initial Confidential Business Information (CBI) Substantiation Forms” provided by a submitter-company, as they reflect the submitter’s efforts to “substantiate its confidentiality claims,” as required by relevant statutes and agency regulations, and because the forms were used by the agency “to identify records to withhold in response to” the FOIA requests at issue; explaining that “[w]hether [the submitter’s] claims [against disclosure] are of any merit is a question left to be decided at summary judgment, but adequate review calls for evaluation of EPA’s treatment of the initial CBI substantiations.”
Haleem v. Dep’t of Def. (D.D.C) — denying a requester’s motion for fees; holding, firstly, that the requester was “eligible for fees” on a catalyst theory; noting the evidentiary record “shows an imperfect process replete with ‘administrative errors,’” “mismarked FOIA referrals,” and a “ten-month” gap where the agency “provides no explanation of its activities”; concluding, however, that the requester was not “entitled” to an award because there was no public benefit in disclosure, and the requester was motivated by a “substantial private interest in bringing . . . suit.”
March 3, 2026
Informed Consent Action Network v. Nat’l Insts. of Health (D.D.C.) — in a case concerning access to records about the “removal of early COVID-19 genetic sequencing data from an NIH-administered database,” granting the agency’s motion for summary judgment; concluding that NIH properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold two categories of records: (1) identifying information for “Chinese researchers” who “submitted data to the BioSample and SRA databases and later requested withdrawal of that data,” and (2) “identifying information for NIH employees who work on the SRA database”; noting substantial privacy interests were implicated, in part, due to the agency declarant’s citation to stories of “threats of violence” and “harassment” against individuals working on “controversial research”; rejecting the requester’s argument that the identifying information at issue was “‘key’ to understanding ‘the origins’ of the COVID pandemic and ‘how to prevent a public health crisis in the future’”; finally, concluding the agency satisfied the foreseeable-harm standard and its obligation to reasonably segregate non-exempt portions of records.
Barth v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — granting the agency’s motion for summary judgment against a pro se requester seeking records about himself, while also denying the requester’s motions for recusal and reconsideration; holding, in relevant part, that DOJ’s Office of Information Policy conducted an adequate search for records.
Am. Oversight v. U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev. (D.D.C.) — dismissing claims brought under the Federal Records Act and the Administrative Procedure Act concerning USAID’s alleged failure to preserve, or seek to recover, federal records, namely, “employee and contractor records” on government-issued electronic devises, certain other “physical records,” and “records stored on USAID’s website,” as nonjusticiable; rejecting the plaintiff’s theory of standing, which was predicated on “imminent threat of future injury from improper destruction or removal of relevant records” that would be responsive to its pending FOIA requests, which were also the subject of the instant litigation and have not been dismissed; describing portions of the plaintiff’s case as “speculative at best” vis-a-vis redressability.
Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.
