American Immigration Lawyers Association v. Executive Office for Immigration Review
Civil Action No. 2013-0840
D.D.C.Nov 17, 2017Background
- AILA filed a FOIA request (Nov 2012) seeking complaints and resolutions against EOIR immigration judges (2009–Nov 2012); EOIR produced records but redacted judges’ names with three-letter codes under Exemption 6.
- District Court initially upheld EOIR’s blanket withholding on summary judgment; D.C. Circuit reversed, requiring a particularized, judge-by-judge or category-based privacy/public-interest showing (Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n v. EOIR).
- On remand EOIR provided a revised Vaughn index with individualized explanations for each judge; AILA narrowed its challenge to 34 judges (from 201 total).
- The only contested question on remand was whether, under Exemption 6, the incremental public interest in disclosure of each judge’s name outweighs the judge’s privacy interest given information already released about the complaints and resolutions.
- The District Court applied the AILA II balancing factors (e.g., substantiation, in-court vs out-of-court, seriousness, discipline, judge’s status, complaint frequency relative to hearing load) and additional considerations such as number of hearings.
- Court concluded withholding was proper for 20 judges but improper for 14 judges (those 14 names must be disclosed); it granted and denied summary judgment in part for both parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 6 permits withholding judges’ names absent individualized justification | AILA: Exemption 6 does not justify withholding the names of the 34 judges at issue given public interest in government operations | EOIR: Exemption 6 permits withholding; EOIR has supplied individualized explanations for each judge showing privacy interests outweigh public interest | Court: D.C. Circuit already required particularized showings; on remand, court applied individualized balancing and held withholding proper for 20 judges and improper for 14 judges (partial grant/deny) |
| How to balance privacy v. public interest under Exemption 6 (application to specific judges) | AILA: Identity disclosure furthers FOIA’s core purpose because names allow public to assess judges’ official actions given the complaint details already released | EOIR: Even with complaint details released, disclosure of names would cause a substantial privacy invasion for many judges (factors like retired status, out-of-court allegations, low substantiation, high hearing loads) | Court: Applied AILA II factors (substantiation, seriousness, in-court vs out-of-court, active/retired status, complaint frequency relative to hearings, discipline). Found incremental public interest outweighs privacy for 14 judges; for 20 judges privacy outweighs public interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens and standard)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (FOIA disclosure philosophy)
- DiBacco v. U.S. Army, 795 F.3d 178 (narrow construction of FOIA exemptions)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83 (FOIA summary judgment practice)
- Dep’t of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487 (FOIA public-interest standard)
- Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (privacy interests in personnel records)
- Robinson v. Pezzat, 818 F.3d 1 (summary judgment factual-inference standard)
- Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n v. Exec. Office of Immigration Review, 830 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (required particularized Exemption 6 balancing)