Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI improperly issued Glomar response pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C regarding communications between FBI and private attorney, because FBI publicly testified before Congress that such communications occurred.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash v. HUD. (D.D.C.) -- denying government’s motion to dismiss after finding that plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently alleged that, “as a matter of policy or practice, HUD denies [fee] waivers without giving them adequate consideration, particularly when the request’s subject may reflect poorly on the agency or its senior officials”
Ctr. for Public Integrity v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- ordering DOD and OMB to process Ukraine-related records by certain dates after finding that the balance of hardships and the public interest weighed in favor of expediting the production of documents.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Shaw v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Criminal Division properly withheld emails between employee and former law firm colleagues as non-agency records because they were created and used for purely personal reasons unrelated to DOJ activities or plaintiff; and (2) agency properly redacted certain personal information pursuant to Exemption 6, which was not overcome by plaintiff’s bare allegations of government misconduct.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Am. Civil Liberties Union Found. v. DOJ (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that FBI improperly issued Exemption 7(E) Glomar response to portion of request regarding FBI’s acquisition of “any product or service that searches, filters, monitors, or collects content on any social media network” in the contexts of immigration and transportation.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Cause of Action Inst. v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- holding that Internet browsing histories of certain OMB and USDA officials were not agency records after finding that agencies did not make use of them in any way.
Am. Immigration Council v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that EOIR performed reasonable search for “non-emergency stay” immigration case records, but that it failed to adequately search for training material for immigration court judges.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Roberson v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit after finding that plaintiff failed to administratively appeal FBI’s final determinations on his three requests.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Kanam v. Office of Benton Peterson (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit because he sent FOIA request to an Assistant United States Attorney instead of to the FOIA office that maintains the records or to DOJ’s mail referral unit, as required by DOJ regulations.
Leopold v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that CIA improperly refused to confirm or deny—pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3—the existence of records referring to payments (in general, not by CIA specifically) to Syrian rebels fighting Assad, because tweet from President Trump officially acknowledged that “U.S. government had some knowledge of some payments to Syrian rebels.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Hardimon v. Exec. Office of U.S. Attorneys (E.D. Mo.) -- concluding that EOUSA performed adequate search for plea agreements associated with multiple criminal cases.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Singh v. FAA (9th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- affirming district’s court decision that FAA properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request for flight records over specified street address and surrounding neighborhoods and that agency performed reasonable search.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Inst. for Justice v. IRS (D.C. Cir.) -- (1) reversing and remanding district court’s decision that agency performed reasonable search or properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request for records contained in “Asset ForfeitureTracking and Retrieval System”; (2) reversing district court’s decision that agency properly redacted information pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and that plaintiff failed to challenge any of agency’s Exemption 7(F) withholdings; and (3) affirming district court’s decision that agency properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 7(C).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.