Case Detail
Case Title | LONG et al v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2006cv00878 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2006-05-10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2006-09-06 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Paul L. Friedman | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | SUSAN B. LONG Co-Director, Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | DAVID BURNHAM Co-Director, Transactional Records | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | LARRY KATZMAN Manager, Transactional Records Access Clearighouse | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Susan Long and David Burnham, co-directors of the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for records concerning the removal of aliens with criminal records. TRAC also requested expedited processing. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, TRAC filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Expedited processing, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Opinion/Order [7] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Paul Friedman has ruled that the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is not entitled to expedited processing for its request for statistical information underlying the Department of Homeland Security's claims made in a petition for Supreme Court review concerning the number of aliens removed from the U.S. as a result of criminal records. After receiving no response to its first request, TRAC submitted a broader second request. It then filed suit, asking the court to force DHS to process both requests immediately. In support of its request for expedited processing, TRAC argued that the information was needed so that interested parties could use it in filing amicus briefs in the Supreme Court case, that immigration issues were a matter of significant public interest, and that the agency's failure to process the original request entitled the organization to expedited processing. Rejecting all three claims, Friedman noted that "plaintiffs cite only to a generalized need to have this information available for such persons who might want to file an amicus brief . . . [E]ven if plaintiffs had intended to file a brief or assist others who might wish to do so, the deadline for filing that [the] plaintiff specified in [its] affidavit has expired. Thus, it cannot be said that plaintiffs' request concerns 'a matter of current exigency' or that the consequences of DHS delaying a response 'would compromise a significant recognized interest.'" As to the information being important to the immigration debate, Friedman observed that "plaintiffs here, however, have failed to identify an imminent action indicating that the requested information will 'not retain its value if procured through the normal FOIA channels.'" He also rejected the claim that failure to process the request within the statutory time limits entitled TRAC to expedited processing. He noted that "the failure to meet these statutory deadlines â€" all too common, unfortunately, in view of the number of FOIA requests made to agencies and the limited resources available to deal with them â€" nevertheless does not constitute a 'compelling need' under the statute." Although it should not be part of the analysis of whether a request should be expedited, Friedman then went on to point out the effect expedition would have on other requesters. He noted that "to compel the agency to provide expedited processing would merely place plaintiffs' request ahead of others that are awaiting responses to their requests. Such a result would injure others who made their requests before the plaintiff or who have presented more meritorious applications for expedited processing."
Issues: Expedited processing - Compelling Need | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|