Case Detail
Case Title | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2016cv00449 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2016-03-07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2018-03-31 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for records concerning any pornographic materials that were gathered from Osama bin Laden's home in Pakistan during the operation in which he was killed. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Washington, DC 20505 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [23] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has ruled that pornographic materials recovered from Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan during the 2011 U.S. raid that killed bin Laden would be contained in the CIA's operational files that are not subject to the search and review provisions of FOIA and that an exception for "special activities" contained in the CIA Information Act does not apply. In the aftermath of the raid, the press reported that an extensive collection of pornography was among the seized materials. Judicial Watch requested the pornographic records from the CIA. The CIA told Judicial Watch that if such records existed they would be in the agency's operational files which were not subject to FOIA. Judicial Watch challenged the agency's claim as to whether or not the pornographic materials would be in operational files, arguing that the records would fit into a "special activity" exception. After reviewing the evolution of the 1984 CIA Information Act, which was designed to alleviate the burden on the CIA to search and review records that were presumptively exempt, Jackson pointed out that the agency's affidavits detailed "the agency's procedures for designating operational files, and for maintaining the files to ensure that designation remains valid over time, and [the agency] also avers that those procedures were followed with respect to the particular operational files that are likely to contain the requested pornographic materials." She observed that "the agency need not actually review the files that are being described, since Judicial Watch has not made any showing to dispute the agency's contentions about the nature and content of the files. Indeed, requiring the CIA to reveal more than it already has about the contents of the operational files that [the agency] describes would undermine the very exemption that Congress has authorized the CIA to invoke in situations such as this." To the extent that Judicial Watch continued to claim that the records were not operational files, Jackson noted that "any argument that the requested pornographic materials do not fit the statute's definition of an 'operational file' misunderstands the statute: a challenge brought under section (f)(4) is a challenge to the designation of the file in which the requested records are placed as 'operational,' and is not a challenge to any individual records that are located in that file." Judicial Watch argued that the records fell within an exception for "special activities." Jackson rejected the claim, pointing out that "the statute also unambiguously provides that the CIA need only open its exempted operational files to 'search and review for information concerning' any special activity of the CIA, which, in this Court's view, precludes the application of the exception to require the agency to search for the pornographic materials requested here." She observed that 'to read the special activity exception more broadly would be to require the CIA to give up its ability to fend off burdensome FOIA requests in pursuit of records that actually do not shed any light on the United States government's role in the planning or execution of a covert intelligence operation, and are, in fact, entirely incidental to that operation." Analogizing the bin Laden records to personal records the CIA might have collected on Fidel Castro as part of the Bay of Pigs operation, Jackson explained that "the relevant public interest for the purpose of circumventing the CIA's special exemption from the FOIA's search and review obligations is the public's interest in the activities of the United States government, and not the public's freestanding interest in documents and information that reveal nothing about the preexisting circumstances of the target of the government's covert action." She added that "far from constituting information about the CIA's alleged special activity, the pornographic materials that Judicial Watch has requested pursuant to the FOIA are entirely incidental to it, such that the special activity exception does not apply to divest the CIA of the protection of the operational files exemption."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|