FOIA News: Defense Dep't posts annual report

The Department of Defense has published its annual FOIA report for fiscal year 2024. Below is a summary of the key statistics:

• 61,858 requests received, a 2.9 percent increase from FY 2023 (60,109).

• 57,662 requests processed, a 3.4 percent increase from FY 2023 (55,731).

• 21,436 backlogged requests, a 7.8 percent increase from the end of FY 2023 (19,882).

• 1105 appeals received, only three fewer than it received in FY 2023 (1108).

• 1105 appeals processed, a 12.8 percent decrease from FY 2023 (1247)

• 607 backlogged appeals, down 17.5 percent from the end of FY 2023 (736)

• Average responses time for processed perfected requests was 30.3 days for simple requests and 199.7 days for complex requests.

• $104.9 million in total processing and litigation-related costs, a 16.5 percent increase from the $90 million in total costs incurred in FY 2023.

FOIA News: Annual reports, where art ye?

Five agencies that typically receive the most FOIA requests annually, DHS, DOJ, DOD, NARA, and Veteran Affairs, have not yet published their annual reports due on March 1st. Additionally, the government’s central website for FOIA has not been update to include annual date for fiscal year 2024. We’ll keep you updated.

Court opinions issued Feb. 24, 2024

Turse v. DOD (D.D.C.) — in a case concerning records about a US drone strike in Somalia, granting the agency’s motion for summary judgment and concluding that its withholding of a PowerPoint slide and Army Regulation 15-6 Report of Investigation under Exemption 1 was appropriate; noting the agency’s declaration adequately described why the records at issue were classified and how disclosure would harm national security; rejecting the requester’s contention that the records were classified “for a prohibited purpose” for lack of evidence; similarly rejecting the requester’s arguments that the agency failed to satisfy the FOIA’s foreseeable-harm standard.

Dawkins v. FBI (E.D.N.Y.) — deciding that FBI performed an adequate search for any surveillance records about pro se plaintiff and his residence; plaintiff was not entitled to in camera review of documents because FBI’s declaration sufficiently detailed its search methodology and explained why it withheld certain records; plaintiff’s request for a court order ending FBI’s alleged surveillance could not be considered because plaintiff failed to raise those allegations in his complaint.

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

Court opinion issued Feb. 21, 2025

Hvistendahi v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- in case concerning an Office of Inspector General’s report about personal misconduct of FBI employees overseas, concluding that: (1) FBI established that dates and locations of the misconduct, as well as the direct quotations from OIG interviews, implicated personal privacy interests under Exemption 7(C), but those interests were outweighed by a “significant public interest” in disclosure; and (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold the “unsubstantiated allegations against FBI officials and the reasons why OIG found them unsubstantiated.”

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

Court opinions issued Feb. 20, 2025

Am. Oversight v. DOJ (D.D.C.) — denying plaintiff’s request expedited processing in a case concerning access to volume two of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on the possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago; holding that the motion for preliminary injunctive relief did not establish how the relief sought (specifically, disclosure of the report before any Senate confirmation vote on Kash Patel) would alleviate any ostensibly irreparable harm, in large part because another court has already enjoined DOJ from releasing the report “no matter what exemption decisions it makes”; questioning also whether the requester’s motion even seeks the type of injunctive relief permitted in the FOIA context.

The Brady Ctr. to Prevent Gun Violence v. FBI (D.D.C.) — determining that the FBI failed to show that disclosure of an agency’s standard operating procedures for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System would enable individuals to circumvent the law for purposes of Exemption 7(E); reserving judgment on the FBI’s segregability analysis until after the agency renewed its summary judgment motion or altered its withholdings; granting summary judgment to the FBI on non-contested information withheld under Exemption 5 and Exemption 7(E).

Magassa v. TSA (D.D.C.) — ruling that: (1) TSA properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with 49 U.S.C. § 114(r) to withhold records concerning the plaintiff, a former employee of Delta Airlines whose security credentials were revoked; (2) TSA properly invoked Exemption 3 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records indicating whether plaintiff is on a federal watch list; and (3) TSA substantiated its Exemption 5’s attorney-client and attorney work-product privilege redactions for records generated during the course of administrative proceedings concerning the plaintiff’s revoked security credentials.

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

FOIA News: CFO tech committee issues white paper

New White Paper on FOIA Data from Chief FOIA Officer Council Technology Committee’s Working Group

BY DOJ/OIP, FOIA Post, Feb. 24, 2025

A white paper issued by the Chief FOIA Officer (CFO) Council Technology Committee’s Data Working Group (DWG) has been posted to FOIA.gov.  The white paper summarizes the DWG’s work, which included interviews with other FOIA programs to gain a better understanding of how they utilize data in managing their operations and how FOIA programs respond to FOIA requests for data.

Read more here.

Jobs, jobs, jobs: Weekly report Feb. 24, 2025

The 90-day hiring freeze imposed by the White House on January 20, 2025, has significantly reduced the number of fillable government FOIA positions. Below are vacancies that appear to be exempt from the freeze.

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of the Army, GS 9, Fort Jackson, SC, closes 2/26/25 (non-public)

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of the Army, GS 12, Fort Belvoir, closes 2/28/25 (non-public).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of the Army, GS 11, Fort Belvoir, closes 2/28/25 (non-public).

Att’y-Advisor, Dep’t of Homeland Sec./USCG, GS 13-14, Wash., DC, closes 3/3/25 (public).

Att’y-Advisor, Dep’t of Homeland Sec./OGC, GS 14-15, Wash., DC, closes 3/12/25 (public).

Att’y-Advisor, Dep’t of Homeland Sec./OGC, GS 13-15, Wash., DC, closes 3/12/25 (public).

FOIA News: HHS posts FY 2024 FOIA report

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has published its annual FOIA report for fiscal year 2024. Below are the significant metrics.

• 51,800 requests received, up 11.3 percent from 46,530 requests received in FY 2023.

• 49,271 requests processed, up 4.5 percent from 47,038 requests processed in FY 2023

• 12,685 requests in backlogged status, a 12.6 percent increase from 11,256 backlogged requests in FY 2023.

• 730 appeals in backlogged status, up 14 percent from640 backlogged appeals in FY 2023.

• $66.1 million in processing costs and $14.1 million for litigation ($80.2 million in total), more than double the $39.7 million in total costs incurred in FY 2023.

  $752k fees collected for processing requests.

FOIA News: New email language may shield more USAID communications from public view

New email language may shield more USAID communications from public view

By Rebecca Heilweil, FedScoop, Feb. 20, 2025

Emails sent by employees of what remains of USAID now come with new language that could be meant to keep agency communications from public view. 

Two sources at the international development agency confirmed to FedScoop that emails sent from agency staff now contain the language “Sensitive But Unclassified.” The designation is used by federal agencies to denote a heightened responsibility to safeguard information. 

Read more here.

Court opinions issued Feb. 18, 2025

Feds for Freedom v. DOD (D.D.C.) — granting the agency’s motion for summary judgment and concluding that “it need not response to the request because its scope is so unreasonably expansive that processing and responding to it would be unduly burdensome”; taking note of an agency declaration that stated complying with the request would implicate “over 1.2 gigabytes of records,” including “over 2,000 emails, each with attachments,” totaling more than “26,000 pages”; noting further these records would require “the most scrutinous review,” or “about 6,500 hours of work.”; finally, concluding “that the breadth of Plaintiff’s request is unreasonable in light of Plaintiff’s asserted purpose” for seeking records, namely, to “protect employee rights by confronting the federal government’s mandates requiring vaccination for COVID-19.”

Wilson v. FBI (D.D.C.) — granting the agency’s motion for summary judgment and holding its “search was sufficient” and “invocation of FOIA exemptions . . . proper”; rejecting the requester’s argument that the agency improperly refused to employ desired search terms and to search in the FBI’s Electronic Surveillance and DELTA databases; with respect to Exemption 7(C), holding that the agency correctly withheld the names and identifying information of government investigators and third parties; with respect to Exemption 7(E), accepting the withholding of “an internal email address, non-public intranet addresses, and non-public phone numbers”; finally, holding that the agency’s use of Glomar was proper with respect to (1) national security and intelligence-related records protected by Exemptions 1 and 3, as well as records identifying individuals (2) in the witness security program, (3) on a watchlist, or (4) who are confidential sources.

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