Case Detail
Case Title | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2017cv00432 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2017-03-10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2018-03-27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Trevor N. McFadden | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Acting Attorney General at the Justice Department requesting that the department make publicly available Office of Legal Counsel opinions and an index of those opinions under Section (a)(2) of FOIA. After hearing nothing further from the agency, CREW filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Affirmative disclosure, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appeal | D.C. Circuit 18-5116 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Opinion/Order [24] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Trevor McFadden has ruled that CREW failed to state a claim in its suit against the Department of Justice to force the agency to post Office of Legal Counsel opinions that constitute final opinions under the affirmative disclosure provisions of Section (a)(2) because some OLC opinions are protected by Exemption 5 (privileges) and are not subject to FOIA disclosure. McFadden reviewed the intertwined litigation brought by CREW and the Campaign for Accountability, both requesting the agency post OLC opinions. Because CREW and the government believed that (a)(2)'s affirmative disclosure provisions could not be enforced under FOIA, CREW originally brought a case under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the agency's failure to post OLC opinions constituted arbitrary and capricious conduct. But in CREW v. Dept of Justice, 164 F. Supp. 3d, 145 (D.D.C. 2016), Judge Amit Mehta ruled that FOIA did provide a remedy. His decision was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in CREW v. Dept of Justice, 846 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2017), but the D.C. Circuit limited FOIA relief only to plaintiffs whose requests had been denied under FOIA. The litigation next moved to a suit brought by the Campaign for Accountability, also asking that OLC opinions be posted under (a)(2). Interpreting the D.C. Circuit's ruling in CREW v. Dept of Justice, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson found that CfA had not shown that all OLC opinions were subject to affirmative disclosure, but allowed CfA to amend its complaint to a smaller universe of OLC opinions that could arguably be characterized as final opinions. However, with that state affairs, McFadden claimed in a footnote to his decision that Brown Jackson's presaged "the logic of this one." He acknowledged the existence of the amended complaint in the CfA litigation, but concluded that "interests of judicial economy currently weigh in favor of keeping these cases separate, given the different claims at issue and the fully-briefed status of the instant motion to dismiss." In dismissing CREW's suit, McFadden made the somewhat bizarre claim that "by its terms, the entire Act â€" including the reading room provision â€" 'does not apply' to nine specific exemption categories, referring to the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck, 421 U.S. 132 (1975), which is a case about the Section (b) exemptions and not the affirmative disclosure provisions. McFadden then noted that "CREW's suit is premised on a universal claim â€" 'all existing and future OLC formal written opinions' and indices thereof are subject to mandatory disclosure under [Section (a)(2)]. Accordingly, if the DOJ can identify any formal written opinions that are not subject to FOIA disclosure, CREW's universal claim fails, and the suit cannot survive the motion to dismiss." He pointed out that the D.C. Circuit had ruled in EFF v. Dept of Justice, 739 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014), that an OLC opinion for the FBI was privileged because it did not constitute the working law of the FBI. McFadden indicated that "this holding dooms CREW's complaint as currently articulated, because it established that at least one of OLC's formal written opinions â€" the opinion in EFF â€" is exempt from FOIA disclosure pursuant to Exemption 5. Even more broadly, the opinion suggests that many of OLC's formal written opinions would be subject to the same deliberative process privilege." McFadden pointed out that OLC opinions might also be protected by attorney-client privilege. McFadden recognized that the CfA litigation might ultimately provide CREW some relief as well, but decided to dismiss the case altogether. Rejecting CREW's request to take discovery, he observed that "but the possibility that some formal written OLC opinions are subject to disclosure cannot rescue a complaint that by its own terms seeks all opinions. To avoid dismissal, CREW must file a complaint â€" not proposed discovery â€" stating a plausible claim to relief."
Issues: Affirmative disclosure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|