Court opinions issued Mar. 11, 2025

Ctr. to Advance Sec. in Am. v. USAID (D.D.C.) — granting the agency’s unopposed motion for a stay due to the “extremely limited” number of “USAID personnel available to work on Freedom of Information Act” matters—specifically, “three direct hire FOIA staff” and “nine institutional support contractors”; noting that USAID “cite[d] no authority in support of its request” for a stay, but understanding the request to arise under Open America; noting further that “the Court is skeptical that an agency can avoid its obligations under FOIA . . . by simply implementing a reduction-in-force . . . [or] more generally, by reducing the agency’s overall FOIA staff ‘by half,’” especially when there are no “external impediments to meeting the statutory requirements, such as a lack of funding from Congress or an unanticipated volume of requests that has overwhelmed the FOIA office”; warning that the stay is entered in large part because it is unopposed and “that this decision should not be understood to forecast how the Court is likely to resolve an opposed request for a stay under similar circumstances or a request by Plaintiff to lift the stay.”

Malik v. DHS (D.D.C.) — granting in part and denying in part the government’s motion for summary judgment, and denying the requester’s cross-motion; concluding, in large part, that the defendant-agencies conducted adequate searches for records concerning requester, notwithstanding the requester’s insistence they overlooked “materials which are known to exist”; upholding the agencies’ exemption claims based on the deliberative process, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges, as well as Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E); yet also rejecting USCIS’s application of Exemption 7 to a “Memo for the Record” concerning the requester’s employment application because, as a “mixed-function agency,” the agency had failed to meet its burden to show how the record was “compiled for a law-enforcement purpose”; ordering USCIS to produce a supplemental affidavit addressing its law-enforcement functions vis-a-vis the contested memo or to proffer more detailed explanation for the applicability of Exemption 5.

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 Mar. 10, 2025

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. U.S. Dep’t of State (S.D.N.Y.) -- deciding that: (1) department performed a reasonable search for certain documents referenced in President Trump’s 2017 travel ban; and (2) following in camera review of four documents, all but three pages of one document were fully protected by the presidential communications privilege and Exemption 1.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. DOGE Serv. (D.D.C.) -- in most notable part, granting plaintiff’s request for expedited processing of various records from the U.S. DOGE Service (USDS) because the “preliminary record” indicated that USDS “likely” wields substantial independent authority from the White House and therefore is any agency subject to FOIA.

Kendrick v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, determining that DEA performed adequate supplemental searches for records concerning pro se plaintiff’s criminal case.

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 Mar. 6, 2025

Whitlock v. Dep’t of Def. (D.D.C.) — in case concerning federal corruption and bribery investigation involving the U.S. 7th Fleet, holding that: (1) government was entitled to summary judgment on issues uncontested by plaintiff, specifically that Navy conducted adequate searches and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C); (2) government was required to release all records withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(A) because the criminal cases it identified as relevant were closed, and it failed to explain how disclosure of each category of withheld records would interfere with any Naval enforcement proceedings; and (3) government was required to release all records withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(B) because it failed to show that disclosure of each category of withheld records “would, more probably than not, seriously interfere with the fairness” of Naval enforcement proceedings.”

Gov’t Accountability Project v. Dep’t of the Treasury (D.D.C.) — finding that agency failed to show that Exemption 4 protected a company’s application and license to sell oil in Syria, because company’s unsworn statements made during the submitter notice process constituted inadmissible hearsay and, in any event, were too “vague and conclusory” to establish that the company customarily and actually treated the documents as private; further finding that some evidence supported Treasury’s position, including confidential markings on the disputed documents, and therefore denying both parties’ summary judgment motions.

Gatore v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C.) — in dispute concerning a request for attorney’s fees, ruling that: (1) only one of dozens of plaintiffs established an attorney-client relationship with moving counsel; (2) plaintiff was eligible for attorney’s fees as a prevailing party because agency had been ordered to release certain documents, rejecting agency’s argument that plaintiff needed to prove she received documents from her counsel; and (3) whether plaintiff was entitled to fees under four-factor test was unnecessary to decide owing to her counsel’s “total lack of billing judgment in this case . . . despite repeated warnings from this Court and other members in this District regarding the serious deficiencies of his billing practices.”

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 Mar. 3, 2025

Jensen v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- finding that SEC performed reasonable search for contract agreements and agency forms filed for two CUSIP numbers, which pro se plaintiff apparently hoped would “expose an alleged conspiracy, orchestrated by his sentencing court, to generate profit from the bonds associated with his criminal proceedings.”

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. 27-28, 2025

Feb. 28, 2025

United States v. Alexander (5th Cir.) (unpublished) -- vacating lower court’s decision denying plaintiff-appellee’s request for grand jury records pertaining to his criminal case, because FOIA does not apply to federal courts and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s FOIA claim.

Puzey v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning pro se inmate’s criminal case records, determining that: (1) DEA, FBI, EOUSA, and ATF performed adequate searches, an issue plaintiff did not dispute; (2) plaintiff did not meaningfully dispute EOUSA’s withholdings under Exemptions 3 and 5; (3) FBI and EOUSA properly withheld the names of agency employees, third parties, and state and law enforcement pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); (4) government properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F), rejecting plaintiff’s public interest arguments as irrelevant; and (5) plaintiff conceded government’s foreseeable harm and segregability requirements.

Biggins v. USPS (D.N.J.) (unpublished) -- dismissing claim because plaintiff failed to send his request to a designated request center, he failed to label his request per agency regulations, and he improperly asked for information instead of records.

Feb. 27, 2025

Louise Trauma Ctr. v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- concluding that ICE did not sufficiently explain its search methodology for requested training material; that in camera review of agency’s Exemption 5 redactions was warranted; and that plaintiff’s request concerning agency’s information processing system was not reasonably described.

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. 25-26, 2025

February 26, 2025

Leopold v. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) — deciding that: (1) agency improperly relied on the deliberative process privilege’s consultant corollary doctrine to withhold its communications with pending nominees to Senate-confirmed positions, because a nominee has a self-interested, independent stake in the confirmation process; (2) agency properly withheld talking points and many other—but not all— records under the deliberative process privilege; and (3) agency met the foreseeable harm and segregability requirements.

February 25, 2025

Transgender Law Ctr. v. ICE (D.D.C.) — in case concerning agency’s treatment of transgender detainees, concluding that: (1) ICE’s search was deficient because the agency neglected to clearly show that it searched the email accounts of two relevant employees, it unreasonably omitted one search term, and it unreasonably used another search term only in combination with other words; and (2) ICE failed to properly support its withholdings under Exemption 5’s attorney-client and deliberative process privileges, including whether foreseeable harm would result from disclosure; (3) ICE did not show how the records withheld under Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) met the law enforcement threshold; (4) ICE improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold agency email domain addresses, to categorically withhold the names of “lower-level” agency employees and third parties, and to withhold name of a training video narrator.

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. 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.

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.