FOIA Advisor

Ryan Mulvey

FOIA News: DOGE moves for reconsideration in FOIA case

FOIA News (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

The Trump Administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, also known as the U.S. DOGE Service, moved for reconsideration on Friday evening in a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case brought by Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington. The government seeks to reverse a district court judge’s prior ruling that it must process CREW’s FOIA request on an expedited basis. Judge Cooper had concluded that DOGE was, in fact, likely an “agency” as defined by the FOIA. Yet that decision—which has not gone uncriticized—was based mostly on factual information gleaned from CREW’s filings and anonymously sourced media reports. The government, for its part, had offered almost no argument about DOGE’s non-agency status when opposing CREW’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

The government’s start-of-weekend motion for reconsideration focuses, principally, on the district court’s “fundamental[] misapprehen[sion] [of] the structure of USDS” and its ostensible “conflat[ion] [of] the responsibilities assigned to USDS within the Executive Office of the President and DOGE teams within agencies.” The DOGE also protests CREW’s efforts to force a “novel and significant” merits question “in a preliminary posture on an expedited basis.” Indeed, the EOP component insists the court’s ruling “implicates substantial separation of powers” issues and “imposes a significant burden” on an entity with “no FOIA apparatus in place and no personnel or resources allocated for processing FOIA requests.” And all this comes on top of what the government claims was the court’s adoption of a novel theory of irreparable harm not even advanced by CREW in its original motion, let alone briefed fully by the parties. Notably, the DOGE motion is accompanied by a declaration from its now-publicly identified administrator, Amy Gleason.

The DOGE motion for reconsideration is opposed. FOIA Advisor will bring you an update on this important and interesting case once further argument from CREW is filed.

Court opinions issued Mar. 11, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

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 Feb. 24, 2024

Court Opinions (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

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 opinions issued Feb. 20, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

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

Court Opinions (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

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.

Court opinion issued Feb. 14, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

Am. Immigration Council v. EOIR (D.D.C.) — granting in part and denying in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and ordering the agency to undertake a supplemental search; concluding that EOIR “properly understood the scope of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request” to seek “official” documents about immigration court practices, but the agency nevertheless inappropriately limited its search to “solely centrally disseminated records” and improperly excluded records created locally by individual immigration courts and judges; concluding further that certain aspects of EOIR’s search were inadequate.

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. 13, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

Heritage Found. v. CIA (D.D.C.) — granting the CIA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the plaintiff’s expedition request because that request lacked the required certification that the grounds for seeking expedition were “true and correct,” which thus rendered it deficient; rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that its non-compliance should be excused because “this is not a case where . . . [it] ‘matters’” and it subsequently added the necessary “magic words” in a second request for expedition; noting that the ruling does not impact the requester’s remaining claims and does not foreclose a motion for leave to amend or supplement the Complaint.

S. Envtl. Law Ctr. v. Tenn. Valley Auth. (E.D. Tenn.) — denying the government’s partial motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, where the requester attempted to challenge the agency’s search adequacy after filing suit for lack of a timely response; holding that the FOIA’s right to judicial review does not distinguish between “an agency’s compliance with the timeframe clause . . . [and] the disclosure, reasonable search, and/or exemption subparagraph(s)”; noting that “Defendant’s labyrinthine conception of the FOIA seems contradictory to the very purposes for which Congress enacted” the law, and if “the Court [were] to take this argument to its logical conclusion, agencies could short-circuit judicial review through precisely the procedural dynamics of this case: force a requester to seek judicial review by failing to timely respond, disclose some requested material only after a suit is filed, and immediately move to dismiss any potential challenge to the adequacy of the disclosure, itself, on grounds of subject matter jurisdiction.”

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. 10, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

Leopold v. FBI. (D.D.C.) — in a case concerning access to the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago investigative file, rejecting the agency’s reliance on Exemption 7(A) and its Glomar response, in large part because there is no longer any pending law enforcement proceeding (i.e., charges against President Trump have been dismissed), and future proceedings are not reasonably anticipated as President Trump is likely immune from prosecution; noting further that the agency failed to support its position with any suggestion of alleged criminal conduct by President Trump after the 2020 presidential election.

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. 6, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

Gannett Satellite Info. Network, LLC v. DOJ (D.D.C.) — on renewed motion for summary judgment in a case concerning access to “individual-level data about people who died while in custody of local jails and state and federal prisons between 2010 and 2019,” ruling in favor of the plaintiff on the issues of search adequacy and the application of exemptions; but granting in part the agency’s motion for partial reconsideration, thus excusing disclosure of certain records whose production was previously stayed and which would be covered by Exemption 3 and the “express confidentiality provision” of the Crime Control Act; notably, explaining the agency improperly limited its search by relying on a technical understanding of whether certain BOP data were “relevant” to the request, despite “being on notice about” what the plaintiff actually wanted and having failed to correct information online (and in the case record) that helped perpetuate plaintiff’s (and the court’s) misunderstanding; emphasizing “[t]he circumstances here”—either “sloppiness and inaccuracy” or, “at worst, intentional obfuscation”—“certainly do not flatter defendant”; further holding that Exemption 7(C) did not apply because the Bureau of Justice Statistics “does not specialize in law enforcement” and the agency otherwise failed to offer any evidence linking the requested data to a law-enforcement investigation; rejecting also the use of Exemption 6 because either there is no substantial privacy interest implicated or the public interest in disclosure is overriding.

Tran v. DOJ (D.D.C.) — in a case brought by a former FBI agent seeking records about his own “criminal investigation and prosecution,” granting in part and denying in part the government’s motion for summary judgment; holding that, while the FBI’s Glomar response was justified for certain records, the agency failed to meet its burden with respect to others about an “undercover informant” who had revealed himself to the public and whom the FBI had “officially acknowledged" as serving in such capacity in another lawsuit; directing the government to provide further explanation for an apparent discrepancy between its initial estimate of responsive pages and the number of pages actually produced; finally, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments about agency “bad faith” as “baseless and without merit.”

Stevens v. DHS (N.D. Ill.) — rejecting, in large part, a requester’s search-adequacy challenge because she “failed to rebut the presumption of good faith” afforded to agency declarations and because the agency’s search methodology (such as limiting efforts to certain offices or databases) was otherwise reasonable; nevertheless concluding that one no-responsive-records search conducted by an ICE field office involved unreasonably limited keywords because two other field offices were able to locate records with “more expansive search terms”; requiring limited supplemental searches for one request where ICE failed to explain its search terms and omitted search terms for subparts of the request; holding the government properly withheld records under Exemption 4 because “private contractors submitted the commercial information . . . with an assurance of privacy,” and Exemption 5 and the deliberative-process privilege; ordering ICE to “re-process and re-evaluation its withholdings” of records not included in the parties’ agreed-upon initial “representative sampling”; finally, ordering ICE to reproduce an “unreadable . . . PDF of a spreadsheet” in native Excel format.

Burrus v. USDA (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision dismissing pro se plaintiff’s FOIA claim, because plaintiff’s “general request for documentation supporting the agency's employment actions included in a letter that described its purpose as protesting those actions did not constitute a FOIA request”; noting that plaintiff’s letter was not addressed to a FOIA office and failed to include the phrase ‘FOIA request” as required by agency regulations.

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. 5, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Ryan MulveyComment

Ctr. for Immigration Studies v. USCIS (D.D.C.) — after in camera review, holding that USCIS properly withheld an internal policy memo concerning a “temporal tweak” to the Temporary Protected Status designation of Haiti under Exemption 5 and the deliberative-process privilege; describing the memo as a “recommendary proposal”; rejecting the requester’s “adoption” argument because the factual record did not suggest “an express choice to use a deliberative document as a source of agency guidance”; similarly rejecting the requester’s “working law” argument given the nature of the advisory memorandum at issue; concluding the agency satisfied the foreseeable-harm standard because “release would chill candid speech about sensitive issues of foreign policy.”

Energy & Policy Inst. v. Tenn. Valley Auth. (E.D. Tenn.) — ruling that plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees and litigation costs totaling $150k, notwithstanding the agency’s release of previously withheld records after the litigation started; accepting TVA’s argument that a business submitter, not the agency, changed its position on the confidential nature of certain records that had been withheld under Exemption 4; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the “buck stops with TVA” with respect to withholdings, noting that the “statute expressly envisions cooperation of non-agency parties.”

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