Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law v. United States Department of Justice
Civil Action No. 2018-1860
| D.D.C. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs (Brennan Center and Prof. Kurzman) sought LIONS database records, including docket numbers, for cases categorized as terrorism-related to study how DOJ defines and prosecutes terrorism.
- DOJ withheld docket numbers under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C); the district court earlier (Brennan I) held Exemption 7(C) applied but ordered disclosure of docket numbers for cases ending in convictions or guilty pleas and withheld those for acquittals/dismissals.
- DOJ moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), arguing many LIONS entries are initial, un-updated categorizations (sometimes erroneous), so disclosure could reveal previously undisclosed terrorism suspicions and cause stigma.
- The court ordered DOJ to count covered convictions since 2006, segregate clear international-terrorism convictions (which DOJ produced), and sample 100 domestic-related convictions; DOJ’s sample showed most sampled convictions lacked any public link to terrorism.
- After reviewing the sample and briefing, the court concluded the public interest in transparency about DOJ’s terrorism categorizations is substantial but that certain privacy interests (investigation-only, erroneous, or internal-only labels) justify withholding some docket numbers.
- The court granted reconsideration in part: DOJ must disclose docket numbers for convictions that bear a clear public connection to terrorism or were publicly identified as terrorism-related; DOJ may withhold docket numbers for entries labeled in error, for investigation-only links that did not lead to terrorism charges, or internal-only designations, subject to Vaughn-index justification and further sorting work by DOJ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 59(e) reconsideration is warranted for DOJ’s newly asserted privacy theory based on LIONS miscategorizations | DOJ already had opportunity; motion is improper and untimely | DOJ discovered material facts about LIONS labeling that affect privacy balance; reconsideration needed to avoid harming third parties | Court allowed limited reconsideration to prevent manifest injustice to third parties, but emphasized Rule 59(e) is disfavored and DOJ bore a heavy burden |
| Whether Exemption 7(C) permits withholding docket numbers for convictions that DOJ only internally labeled terrorism-related (no public terrorism link) | Public interest in DOJ’s categorization and prosecution practices outweighs privacy for convictions | Internal terrorism labels can reveal undisclosed investigations or mislabeling and pose substantial privacy/stigma harms; Exemption 7(C) protects those | Court held Exemption 7(C) permits withholding for convictions that would disclose previously unknown terrorism investigations, internal-only designations, or errors; public interest does not overcome the privacy harm for those entries |
| Whether DOJ must disclose docket numbers for convictions that have a clear public connection to terrorism (press release, charging doc, sentencing memo, or statutes inherently terrorism-related) | These must be disclosed to permit public scrutiny and statistical study | DOJ conceded these implicate minimal privacy and can be released but argued sorting would be burdensome | Court affirmed prior ruling: disclose docket numbers for convictions publicly linked to terrorism or under statutes with self-evident terrorism nexus; DOJ must do the necessary case-by-case work |
| Whether DOJ may withhold whole categories of docket numbers without case-by-case segregation due to processing burden | Plaintiffs argued DOJ must segregate and disclose what it can; burden alone insufficient | DOJ argued LIONS lacks functionality and manual review of thousands of records is unduly burdensome | Court rejected burden as a free pass; DOJ must identify statutes with clear domestic-terror nexus and manually segregate public-link cases; burden does not justify wholesale withholding |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (privacy/public-interest balance for disclosure of docket numbers; convictions implicate lower privacy interest)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 750 F.3d 927 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (stronger privacy interest for acquittals/dismissals; governs withholding for non-convictions)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA public-interest inquiry and privacy-protecting principles)
- Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (scope of privacy interests under FOIA exemptions)
- SafeCard Servs. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (categorical protection for names in law-enforcement files absent compelling need)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 854 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (refining SafeCard: less protection when individual already publicly implicated, but new information retains privacy)
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (standards for Rule 59(e): intervening change, new evidence, or clear error)