Case Detail
| Case Title | AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2018cv00944 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2018-04-23 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2018-12-04 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge James E. Boasberg | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | American Center for Law and Justice submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State for records concerning the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East. ACLJ also requested expedited processing and a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, denied ACLJ's request for expedited processing, and deferred a decision on ACLJ's request for a fee waiver. After hearing nothing further from the agency, ACLJ filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [21] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the Department of State properly withheld portions of a five-page report on the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East under Exemption 1 (national security). The American Center for Law and Justice requested a State Department report concerning UNRWA aid to Palestinian refugees. The agency disclosed most of the five-page report but withheld portions under Exemption 1. ACLJ filed suit, challenging both the substantive and procedural classification of the report. The original report was classified as confidential by Anne Richard, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. To support its classification claim, State also provided an affidavit from Eric Stein, the FOIA Officer, attesting that the withheld portions of the report were properly classified. ACLJ argued that Richard's original classification was improper because it did not show that she had complied with the classification procedures and that she did not provide an adequate rationale for classifying the report. Boasberg rejected both claims. He noted that "the [Executive Order on Classification] says nothing about a classifier's need to 'make certain' that procedural requirements were met. As State correctly asserts, moreover, there are no magic words required to meet this standard. Rather, in the absence of bad faith, general statements of procedural compliance may suffice." ACLJ also claimed that Richard had only cited § 1.4(d) pertaining to foreign relations when she classified the report while Stein had added § 1.4(b) which pertained to foreign government information as a second reason when he reclassified the report, suggesting that Richard's original classification decision was incorrect. Boasberg observed that "this makes little sense. The fact that the original Report held one fewer classification rationale has no bearing on whether the information was properly classified originally." But ACLJ suggested that Richard's single rationale meant that she had improperly underestimated the harm to national security. Boasberg pointed out that "this position holds no water. Plaintiff misinterprets the Order to mean that Richard must have articulated possible threats initially. ACLJ cites no caselaw to support this proposition, and with good reason â€" it does not exist. State properly asserts that the determining factor is whether a present-day original classification authority (in this case, Stein) is able to certify, based on his own independent review of the information, that it presently meets the standards for classification." ACLJ challenged Stein's personal knowledge of the need to classify the report as well as his rationale. Referring to the "plethora" of reasons Stein provided for his classification decision, Boasberg noted that Stein's "declaration also explains specific harms that would likely occur as a result of the information's release. . .These statements are thus sufficient because they demonstrate that 'the withheld information logically falls within the claimed exemptions' â€" namely the ones identified in both § 1.4(b) and § 1.4(d)." ACLJ argued that a letter from members of the House of Representatives urging President Trump to declassify the report undercut State's decision that it remained properly classified. Boasberg concluded otherwise, noting that "it is a dangerous proposition indeed that executive-branch determinations should be overruled by a simple missive from a few members of the legislature. Such a theory would overturn years of deference to executive affidavits in matters of national security and potentially implicate separation of powers. It is the Executive, not Congress and not the Court, who has the expertise to make such determinations."
Issues: Exemption 1 - Properly classified, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
