American Civil Liberties Union v. Central Intelligence Agency
Civil Action No. 2016-1256
D.D.C.Nov 24, 2021Background
- On March 3, 2016 the ACLU submitted FOIA requests to multiple agencies; disputes narrowed to CIA redactions of names of current/former employees exempted from CIA prepublication review.
- CIA produced documents: 9 in full, 20 in part, withheld 7 in full; contested redactions invoked FOIA Exemptions 1 (national security/classification), 3 (statutory withholding under CIA Act §6), and 6 (privacy).
- One withheld name was asserted by CIA to be that of a covert officer and therefore classified under Executive Order No. 13526.
- ACLU contended some named individuals are former officers who have published under their own names with CIA clearance (arguing official acknowledgement/waiver and public-interest weight), and challenged privacy and classification claims.
- Court reviewed agency declarations, applied FOIA standards and de novo review, and: upheld Exemptions 1 and 3 for the contested names; rejected Exemption 6 (privacy) as to those names; declined to order supplemental declaration or in camera review; found segregability satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemption 1 — Classified identity of covert officer | ACLU: individual may be a former officer who has published under own name, so name is not currently classified | CIA: name is classified; disclosure would harm intelligence sources/methods and endanger officer/family | Court: CIA met Exemption 1; withheld name allowed (grant CIA, deny ACLU) |
| Exemption 3 — CIA Act §6 bars disclosure of Agency personnel names | ACLU: Section 6 protects only names CIA treats as confidential; ACLU also asserts official-acknowledgement via cleared publications | CIA: §6 is a controlling Exemption 3 statute covering names of current/former personnel; no official, documented public acknowledgement shown | Court: §6 applies; ACLU failed to show official acknowledgement; Exemption 3 upheld (grant CIA, deny ACLU) |
| Exemption 6 — Personal privacy vs public interest in disclosure | ACLU: names are of minimal privacy interest and public interest in CIA prepublication review outweighs privacy | CIA: employees have substantial privacy interest; disclosure could cause harassment/unwanted contact | Court: Exemption 6 not satisfied — CIA’s privacy showing was conclusory and public interest in transparency outweighs privacy; names must be disclosed (deny CIA, grant ACLU) |
| Supplemental declaration / in camera review / segregability | ACLU: CIA declarations lack detail; ask for supplemental declaration and in camera review | CIA: initial declarations are reasonably detailed and sufficient; segregability done | Court: declarations adequate for Exemptions 1 and 3; in camera and supplemental declaration not required; segregability satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Gold Anti–Trust Action Comm., Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 762 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D.D.C. 2011) (summary judgment is appropriate vehicle for FOIA cases)
- SafeCard Servs. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency affidavits get presumption of good faith if reasonably detailed)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (court may rely on agency declarations when specific and nonconclusory)
- Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (reasonable specificity required for Exemption 1/3 showings)
- Wolf v. C.I.A., 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (official-acknowledgement doctrine requires an official, documented disclosure)
- Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (CIA Act §6 is an Exemption 3 statute)
- U.S. Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982) (Exemption 6 protects personal privacy; balancing test applies)