Case Detail
Case Title | JAMES MADISON PROJECT et al v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2017cv01231 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2017-06-22 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2019-03-26 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Amy Berman Jackson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | JAMES MADISON PROJECT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | NOAH SHACHTMAN | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | SPENCER ACKERMAN | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | The James Madison Project and Noah Shachtman and Spencer Ackerman of the Daily Beast submitted FOIA requests to the CIA and other intelligence agencies for records concerning President Trump's decision to share classified information with Russian officials during a meeting at the White House. The agencies acknowledged receipt of the requests, but after the James Madison Project heard nothing further from the agencies, it filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees, Failure to respond within statutory time limit | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF STATE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Complaint attachment 5 Complaint attachment 6 Complaint attachment 7 Opinion/Order [17] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA properly invoked a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records in response to a request from the James Madison Project and Noah Shachtman and Spencer Ackerman, an editor and reporter for the Daily Beast, for records memorializing President Donald Trump's decision to share classified information with Russian government officials during a May 10, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office based on Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 3 (other statutes). The request was also sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of State. DIA told the requesters that it did not have any records and the State Department told them that it had not yet finished its search. As a result, Jackson addressed only the Glomar claims of the CIA, FBI, and NSA. All three agencies explained that acknowledging whether or not they had an interest in such a diplomatic meeting and, further, collected information about such meetings, would reveal intelligence interests that were properly classified. Jackson approved of the agencies' use of a Glomar response, noting that she was "satisfied that they have put forth a 'plausible' and 'logical' argument in support of their Glomar responses under Exemption 1." JMP, Shachtman, and Ackerman argued that public statements by Trump, then National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson revealed that classified information had been disclosed during the meeting. Although Trump frequently confirms things publicly that no former president would ever formally acknowledge, as has happened a number of times during the Trump administration, Jackson found that the public admissions did not specifically match the records sought. She noted that "none of the statements made by President Trump, McMaster, or Tillerson explicitly acknowledges that either the CIA, NSA, or FBI has records 'memorializing the contents' of the May 10 meeting. Indeed, not a single public statement mentions any records related to the May 10 meeting, much less the 'transcripts or notes' plaintiffs specifically requested." Jackson found that a statement by McMaster alluded to communications between the CIA and NSA and Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert. But she pointed out that "this vague acknowledgment of some type of post-meeting communications between Bossert and the CIA and NSA does not expressly mention any particular record, nor does it reveal â€" explicitly or implicitly â€" that either of the agencies retains records memorializing the May 10 meeting." JMP, Shachtman and Ackerman argued that the government writ large had acknowledged an interest in the meeting. Finding this insufficient, Jackson indicated that "the Court cannot speculate that specific documents exist within individual agencies based on general pronouncements in the public domain, or the fact that 'the U.S. Government' has an 'interest' in a matter that came up at meeting. To do so would violate the strict requirements of the official acknowledgment doctrine which demands 'exactitude,' particularly in cases like this one where national security and foreign affairs are involved." She rejected the plaintiffs' reliance on ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013), in which the D.C. Circuit held that the CIA could not plausibly claim that it had no interests in drones to sustain a Glomar response. Here, Jackson pointed out that "the FBI, NSA, and CIA have not issued public statements related to the May 10 meeting. Nor do any of the public statements listed by plaintiffs reveal their involvement in the meeting, or in preparing for the meeting."
Issues: Determination - Glomar response, Public domain, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 Reply Memorandum Supporting Defendant's Motion for Partial S 8 Exhibit 1 8 Exhibit 1 8 Memorandum Supporting Plaintiff's Motion for Partial SJ 9 Declaration of Antoinette Shiner 9 Declaration of David Hardy 9 Declaration of David Sherman 9 Memorandum Supporting Defendant's Opposition to Partial SJ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|