American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Justice
409 U.S. App. D.C. 431
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- ACLU filed FOIA requests seeking case names, docket numbers, and courts for prosecutions where DOJ obtained cell‑phone location data without a warrant. DOJ identified 229 responsive prosecutions.
- The district court ordered disclosure for prosecutions that resulted in convictions or public guilty pleas, but allowed withholding for acquittals, dismissals, or sealed cases.
- On first appeal (ACLU I), the D.C. Circuit affirmed disclosure for convicted defendants (214 cases) but remanded to determine whether any responsive cases involved acquittals/dismissals/sealed matters.
- On remand DOJ released docket info for 214 convictions and withheld records for 15 nonconviction/ sealed cases; ACLU did not challenge withholding for sealed cases, leaving six cases (four dismissals, two acquittals) in dispute.
- The district court granted summary judgment to DOJ on the six nonconvicted cases; the D.C. Circuit reviews de novo whether Exemption 7(C) justifies withholding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ACLU) | Defendant's Argument (DOJ) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 7(C) permits withholding docket info for prosecutions that ended in acquittal/dismissal | Minimal additional privacy interest beyond convicted defendants; public interest in warrantless cell‑site tracking remains high and disclosure furthers public scrutiny | Nonconvicted defendants have substantial privacy interests similar to uncharged investigation subjects; disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy | Held: Exemption 7(C) protects withholding — privacy interest of unconvicted defendants outweighs public interest |
| Whether prior public availability (e.g., PACER/Google) eliminates privacy interest | Prior public records reduce but do not eliminate privacy; ACLU contends reduction makes privacy nearly de minimis | DOJ: nonconviction status still carries stronger privacy interest despite public records | Held: Prior public disclosure attenuates but does not defeat the substantial privacy interest of acquitted/dismissed defendants |
| Whether the public interest should be assessed via incremental value given DOJ already released 214 conviction dockets | ACLU: incremental-value argument cannot be used to withhold important responsive records; additional cases may yield unique info (e.g., suppression hearings) | DOJ: the public benefit of the six remaining records is low given the 214 released cases; focus should be on incremental value | Held: Court assumes arguendo public interest equal but finds even then privacy outweighs public interest; concurrence stresses incremental value reduces benefit further |
| Whether DOJ had to provide additional factual detail (e.g., whether defendants are deceased) before balancing | ACLU: DOJ failed to produce facts (17 items) that could affect the balance and thus prevented a proper ruling | DOJ: most facts are ACLU’s burden; only death of defendants might matter; DOJ did not need to establish deaths because reputational/family interests persist | Held: DOJ’s apparent failure to determine deaths does not change outcome — even death would not eliminate substantial privacy interests, so withholding remains justified |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (disclosure of rap sheets intrudes on privacy; balance focuses on public interest in government activities)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice (ACLU I), 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (held disclosure appropriate for convictions; remanded as to nonconvictions)
- Favish v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (when privacy concerns are present, requester must show sufficient public-interest justification)
- U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991) (evaluate incremental value of identifying information in light of materials already disclosed)
- Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755 (privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of involvement in alleged criminal activity)
- Schrecker v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 349 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (focus on incremental public value of specific information sought)
- Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975) (privacy interests fade when information is on the public record)
- Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) (presumption of innocence in criminal justice)
- Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) (some privileges and reputational interests survive death)