Case Detail
| Case Title | CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2018cv00340 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2018-02-13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2019-03-19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Amy Berman Jackson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Campaign Legal Center submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for records pertaining to President Trump's allegations of voter fraud. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency disclosed some records, including an email chain describing the creation of what became the presidential advisory commission on voter integrity. However, the names of the authors and recipients of emails were redacted under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). CLC filed an administrative appeal, arguing that since the names had now become public through media accounts, they should now be disclosed. The Office of Information Policy denied CLC's appeal, and CLC filed suit. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | D.C. Circuit 19-5143 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Complaint attachment 8 Complaint attachment 9 Opinion/Order [21] FOIA Project Annotation: Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that the public interest in knowing the identities of three individuals named in emails pertaining to the creation of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity outweighs their de minimis privacy interests under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and should be disclosed in response to a FOIA request from the Campaign Legal Center. CLC submitted a request to the Office of Information Policy in February 2017, shortly after President Donald Trump had made allegations of massive voter fraud. The Commission was created by Executive Order in May 2017 and disbanded in January 2018 after 44 states had refused to provide the requested data on voter registration. OIP completed its search for records responsive to CLC's request, locating six pages, including an email chain, which was redacted under Exemption 6. CLC filed an administrative appeal, which was denied. After CLC filed suit, OIP reconsidered its withholding and released the names of two individuals identified in the email chain â€" Hans von Spakovsky, who authored the original email and was identified as the Manager for the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation, and Ed Haden, identified as a private attorney who previously worked for former Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). In the email, von Spakovsky appeared to be lobbying for a position on the committee for himself and Haden. But OIP continued to argue that the others identified in the email chain had a privacy interest that outweighed any public interest in disclosure. Jackson agreed that based on D.C. Circuit precedent, the other individuals had more than a de minimis privacy interest, necessitating an exploration of the public interest in disclosure. OIP contended that since there was no evidence that von Spakosky's email was acted upon CLC had failed to show a sufficient public interest in disclosure. But Jackson pointed out that "but FOIA does not require the plaintiff to prove that the information was 'acted upon.' The operative question is whether disclosure would advance FOIA's purpose of helping members of the public stay informed about 'what their government is up to.'" She explained that "given the public interest in the formation of the Commission, and the fact that von Spakovsky's appointment followed the transmittal of the email, there is a public interest in knowing who he asked to weigh in that outweighs the individual's weak privacy interest in shielding that information." She found the public interest in disclosure also outweighed the minimal privacy interests of the other two individuals as well, noting that "the public has an interest in knowing who may have attempted to influence the appointment process, and whether the [unidentified individuals were] ultimately named a Commissioner or added to the Administration." The agency also withheld a notation on von Spakosky's travel plans under Exemption 6. Jackson agreed with the agency that this information was protected under Exemption 6, observing that "von Spakovsky has a privacy interest in his personal travel plans and disclosure of his schedule or destination would reveal nothing about the Government's operations."
Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
