Case Detail
| Case Title | American Civil Liberties Union et al v. Department of Defense et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Southern District of New York | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Foley Square | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2017cv09972 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2017-12-21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | Open | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Edgardo Ramos | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | American Civil Liberties Union | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | American Civil Liberties Union Foundation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The American Civil Liberties Union submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State for records concerning the Trump administration's rules governing the use of lethal force abroad, known as "Principles, Standards, and Procedures." The ACLU also requested expedited processing and a fee waiver. The agencies acknowledged receipt of the request and some indicated that the request would be put on their complex track for processing. However, after hearing nothing further from any of the agencies, the ACLU filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Public Interest Fee Waiver | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Department of Defense | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Department of Justice | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | Department of State | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [25] Opinion/Order [39] Opinion/Order [40] FOIA Project Annotation: U.S. District Court Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York has opened the slightly cracked door that was first breached by the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013) in which the D.C. Circuit found that it was no longer plausible for the CIA to claim that it had no interest in the use of drones in targeted killings, rejecting the CIA's Glomar defense neither confirming nor denying the existence of records and requiring instead that the agency process the request. Ramos' decision opened that door marginally further by rejecting the Defense Department's Glomar defense in responding to requests from the ACLU and the New York Times for records concerning the 2017 decision by the Trump administration to relax the restriction contained in a 2013 revision in the Obama administration's covert operations procedures because the revision had been disclosed by the U.S. Army's investigatory report of a 2017 incident in Niger in which four U.S. soldiers were killed in an ambush. However, while the template set out in ACLU v. CIA will probably continue to expand, requiring agencies to admit to the existence of records that are often commonly known by the media and researchers is something of a pyrrhic victory since those records probably remain subject to exemption claims. Ramos' ruling came in a case brought by the ACLU and the New York Times for records concerning the updated policies on covert operations. The 2013 revision by the Obama administration, known as a Presidential Policy Guidance, was dated May 22, 2013. A redacted version of the policy revision was released to the ACLU as part of 2016 FOIA litigation. Explaining the Obama PPG, Ramos indicated that it "prioritized capturing suspects and limiting lethal operations. . .It directed that these operations only be attempted when the United States has identified and located the target with near certainty, and when there is a near certainty that non-combatants will not be harmed." Further, the Obama guidance required that such operations go through a multi-step interagency review, including the National Security Council, before being approved by the President. In October 2017, the New York Times reported that Trump issued Principles, Standards and Procedures, relaxing the Obama guidance by making it simpler to approve such operations. As a result, the ACLU filed a FOIA request for the Trump PSP. In June 2019, the Defense Department disclosed a redacted version of its investigation report of the October 2017 ambush in Niger, which killed four U.S. soldiers and four Nigerien partners. In discussing whether U.S. forces involved in the Niger operation followed White House policy, the report indicated that "On 3 October 2017, the Executive Policy governing direct action against terrorists on the continent of Africa was codified in the 'U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the use of force in counterterrorism operations outside the United States and areas of active hostilities.'" As a result of the investigation report, the ACLU asked DOD to confirm the existence of the updated guidance. Several months later, the New York Times also filed suit based on its October 2019 FOIA request for the updated guidance. Because of their similarity, the ACLU and Times litigation was consolidated and assigned to Ramos. The government argued that its Glomar response remained tenable even after the disclosure of the existence of the updated guidance in the Army investigation report, while the ACLU and the New York Times contended that the Army report on the Niger ambush had waived the government's ability to sustain its Glomar defense. Ramos explained that "the Court finds the information at issue, when viewed on its own, was properly withheld under Exemption 1. But the Niger ambush report 'shifted the factual groundwork' on which the Court examines the propriety of the FOIA Exemptions. Although disclosure of the report does not qualify as an 'official disclosure' that would waive the agencies' ability to invoke Exemption 1, it does make the continued use of that exemption illogical and implausible." The ACLU and the New York Times argued that the public affidavit submitted by Ellen Knight, then-Senior Director of Records Access and Information Security Management at the NSC, did not provide enough information to justify the government's Glomar response. Ramos indicated that "alone, this public declaration would be insufficient to show that the agencies' invocation of Exemption 1 was logical and plausible." But after reviewing the classified sections he noted that "the agencies have shown that potential harm to the national security could result if the existence of updates to the PPG are disclosed is logical and plausible." However, Ramos rejected the government's claim that the records were also protected under Exemption 3, citing the protection for sources and methods in the National Security Act. Ramos pointed out that "although the Court is aware of a 'broad sweep' of the Act in protecting intelligence sources and methods, it is the burden of the agencies to educate the Court on the connection between those concepts within the context of the case. . . [T]he Court credits the potential harm to national security of disclosure, but it does not see â€" through its review of the classified and unclassified Knight Declaration â€" the connection between that harm and the disclosure of intelligence sources and methods protected by the National Security Act." In the Second Circuit, the official disclosure doctrine is based on the test articulated in Wilson v. CIA, 586 F.3d 171 (2nd Cir. 2009), finding that an official disclosure occurs only if the information deemed to have been officially disclosed is as specific as the information previously disclosed, matches the information previously disclosed, and was made public though an official documented disclosure. Applying the Wilson test here, Ramos noted that "the record discussed in the Niger ambush report specifically discloses that the PSP supersedes previous guidance regarding the use of direct action by U.S. forces, and is therefore responsive to the ACLU's request. An interpretation that suggests otherwise would require purposeful distortion of the report's plain meaning. The information in the report is as specific as and matches the information the ACLU and the Times seek here." Ramos found the disclosure ancillary to the purposes of the report. He noted that "the purpose of the disclosure in the Niger ambush report was to communicate the findings and recommendations coming from an investigation into the Niger ambush, not to discuss changes to the direct-action rules created by the Obama administration." He observed that "finding a Defense Department report by a major general and approved by the head of a U.S. combatant command is not 'official' approaches being a distinction without a difference." Her explained that "to allow an ancillary disclosure such as this one to force the Defense Department to waive an exemption could turn future FOIA suits into a game of 'gotcha,' allowing the decision of one subset of an organization to lead to the release of information potentially harmful to national security." Because Ramos found that the disclosure in the Niger ambush report was not an official disclosure that waived the government's ability to Exemption 1, he indicated that an Exemption 1 claim now was untenable. He pointed out that "although the Court has found that the Defense Department did not intend to make an official disclosure regarding updates to the Obama Guidance, the reference to updated guidance regarding direct action against suspected terrorists is a necessary and explicit part of the report's findings and recommendations. Put simply, the Niger ambush report has credibly and conclusively established that the Obama Guidance has been superseded. No 'increment of doubt' remains."
Opinion/Order [48]Issues: Determination - Glomar response, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security Opinion/Order [52] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 014 Govt Answer to Complaint 023 Pl Letter to Judge Ramos 024 Govt Letter to Judge Ramos 030 Knight Decl 031 Govt Memo Supporting MSJ 033 Pl Memo in Support of Cross MPSJ 034 Hogle Decl 034-10 Hogle Decl- Exhibit 4 034-3 Hogle Decl- Exhibit 2.2 034-4 Hogle Decl- Exhibit 2.3 034-5 Hogle Decl- Exhibit 2.4 034-6 Hogle Decl- Exhibit 2.5 034-7 Hogle Decl- Exhibit 2.6 034-8 Hogle Decl- Exhibit 2.7 034-9 Hogle Decl- Exhibit 3 035 Govt Reply Memo in Support of MSJ 036 Pl Reply Memo in Support of Cross PMSJ 037 Govt Letter to Judge Ramos 038 Pl Letter to Judge Ramos 042 Order Granting Letter Motion for Extension of Time 044 Memo Endorsement Approving Proposed Schedule 053 Endorsed Pl Letter Providing Status Update Timeline | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
