American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Defense
393 U.S. App. D.C. 384
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- ACLU FOIA requests DoD and CIA for records related to fourteen high-value detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
- Government released redacted CSRT transcripts and related notes, withholding capture, detention, and interrogation details under FOIA exemptions 1 and 3.
- District Court granted summary judgment for government; on remand CIA reprocessed documents and additional transcript released; renewed summary judgment denied by district court.
- ACLU appealed, challenging exemptions and seeking in camera review; court reviews de novo the adequacy of agency affidavits and application of exemptions.
- Court holds information is properly classified under Exemptions 1 and 3; in camera review not required; affirming district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the redacted items shielded by Exemptions 1 and 3 as intelligence sources or methods? | ACLU contends information publicized declassifications remove secrecy. | CIA affidavits show information remains sensitive; disclosures would harm national security. | Yes; exemptions apply. |
| Does official disclosure of related documents defeat exemptions via officially acknowledged information? | Public declassifications render withheld material officially acknowledged. | Official disclosures do not foreclose withholding of other related information. | No; exemptions preserved. |
| May the court conduct in camera review of redacted materials when affidavits suffice? | Bad faith or insufficient redactions require in camera review. | Affidavits are sufficiently detailed; in camera review not required. | No; court did not need in camera review. |
| Does President’s post-9/11 policy change undermine classification authority over detainee-derived information? | Policy changes limit agency mandate and thus exemptions. | Classification authority remains; policy does not nullify exemptions. | No; exemptions valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolf v. C.I.A., 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (deference to agency affidavits; official status of disclosures)
- Fitzgibbon v. C.I.A., 911 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (official acknowledgment requirement for exemption 3)
- Larson v. Dep't of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (review of agency affidavits; substantial weight to classification status)
- Krikorian v. Dep't of State, 984 F.2d 461 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (court defers to agency judgments in national security FOIA)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (affidavits sufficient; no in camera review required when detailed)
- Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (harm-to-national-security standard; deference to agency predictions)
- Hayden v. N.S.A., 608 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (in camera review as last resort; avoid routine use)
- Fitzgibbon, 911 F.2d 755, as above (see above) (reiterated official acknowledgment principles)