FOIA Advisor

Court Opinions (2025)

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.

Court opinions issued Jan. 30 & 31, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Allan BlutsteinComment

January 31, 2025

Day v. DOD (D.D.C.) — concluding that EOUSA, USMS and INTERPOL Washington properly relied on Exemptions 6, 7(C) and 7(E) to withhold records concerning plaintiff that were referred by DOD’s Office of Inspector General; further finding that all agencies released reasonably segregable information to plaintiff.

January 30, 2025

Power the Future v. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s combined summary judgment motion and motion to dismiss; holding that (1) the plaintiff’s expedited processing claim was moot and the court lacked jurisdiction because all requested records had been released, (2) the plaintiff’s claim for costs and fees was premature and needed to be resolved though a post-judgment motion, and (3) the agency properly applied Exemption 6 and the FOIA’s foreseeable-harm requirement to withhold the names of two low-level employees; deciding not to decide the parties’ dispute over whether the requester exhausted all administrative remedies before filing suit.

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 Jan. 24, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Allan BlutsteinComment

Am. First Legal Found. v. USDA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege protected agency strategic plans to promote voter registration and voter participation that were submitted to the White House pursuant to an Executive Order; rejecting appellant’s argument that several agency declarations, the Executive Order, and a White House fact sheet undermined the White House’s sworn statements about the nature and use of the strategic plans.

Human Rights Def. Ctr v. U.S. Park Police (D.C. Cir.) -- (1) reversing district court’s decision that the names of police officers involved in three tort settlements were protected by Exemption 6 (and ordering their disclosure), because the agency’s showing was “wholly conclusory, lacking even minimal substantiation of the officers’ privacy interest or the potential harm from disclosing their names”; moreover, finding that the Park Police failed to meet the foreseeable harm test; and (2) vacating the district court’s order preventing plaintiff-appellant from disclosing, disseminating, or making use of the names of two settlement claimants inadvertently released; concluding that “neither FOIA nor any inherent judicial authority” enabled an agency to seek a court order to limit the effects of its error, and opining that a contrary Tenth Circuit decision neglected to properly consider “important limitations on courts’ inherent authority”; expressing no opinion as to whether a court may claw back inadvertently released documents that are “subject to any independent legal prohibition on disclosure such as applies to classified documents”, also declining to consider whether the First Amendment prevented the district court from issuing its clawback order.

NB: Congratulations to our colleague Ryan Mulvey, who filed an amicus brief for Americans For Prosperity Foundation in support of the appellant on the clawback dispute. Ryan authored an AFPF post about the case here.

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 Jan. 22, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Allan BlutsteinComment

Sejas v. U.S. Attorney’s Office (S.D.N.Y.) -- granting government’s motion for summary judgment because pro se plaintiff, who sought records pertaining to three Bolivian individuals, neglected to administratively appeal agency’s denial pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

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 Jan. 17, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Allan BlutsteinComment

Helmer v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) State Department performed adequate searches for various records concerning Sir Zelman Cowen, the nineteenth Governor-General of Australia; (2) plaintiff’s claim that State failed to timely respond to his request was moot; and (3) plaintiff lacked standing to bring a policy-or-practice claim because he never showed that he was realistically threatened by a repetition of State’s alleged policy of practice of unjustified delay.

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 Jan. 16, 2025

Court Opinions (2025)Allan BlutsteinComment

Stevens v. HHS (N.D. Ill.) -- ruling that:(1) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement failed to show that it performed adequate search for various records concerning three individuals, reasoning that: (a) ICE neglected to explain the full scope of ICE program offices and why it limited its search to certain offices, (b) ICE did not sufficiently explain which of the potentially responsive records it found in each of the program offices for each of the individual requests were ultimately produced to plaintiff, and (c) ICE’s search terms were underinclusive for two of the requested individuals; and (2) agency failed to justify its withholdings, noting that its Vaughn Index was “at the very least incomplete” and its declaration contained “clearly erroneous statements showing a lack of attention to detail and accuracy”; further, remarking that ICE’s privacy-related redactions on a “publicly filed document readily available on a public docket” were “egregious,” “ludicrous” “preposterous,” and a “blatant misuse of exemptions” that “defies comprehension” and “screams of bad faith”; and (3) ICE must release all records to plaintiff in full, because: (a) in camera review would be too burdensome, (b) ICE already was already afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental Vaughn Index and “enough was enough” after years of delay.

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