Carter v. National Security Agency, 962 F. Supp. 2d 130

Plaintiff Glen Carter requested FOIA records from NSA in 2006 regarding information about him and potential surveillance, including cross-border data transfers and interception of communications.
NSA treated the request as one for records on surveillance, targeting, and domestic collection of Carter’s information and denied it under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3 as classified and statute-protected.
NSA issued Glomar responses, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records to prevent disclosure of sources and methods.
Plaintiff appealed the denial; NSA maintained the Glomar stance and the asserted exemptions, arguing disclosure would reveal intelligence sources or methods and be prohibited by statute.
The court analyzed NSA’s classification-based justification and Exemption 3 statutes, and evaluated whether the agency properly interpreted the FOIA request and whether the declarations were sufficient to sustain nondisclosure.
The court granted NSA’s motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine dispute of material fact and that NSA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NSA properly relied on Exemption 1 and a Glomar response.	Carter argues Exemption 1 does not cover his request and Glomar is inappropriate for his personal data.	NSA contends that confirming or denying would reveal classified sources/methods and that Glomar is proper.	Exemption 1 and Glomar justified; records’ existence appropriately classified.
Whether Exemption 3 statutes justify withholding Carter’s information.	Statutes do not immunize all withheld material or require disclosure of raw data.	Statutes protect NSA’s intelligence activities, sources, and methods; disclosure is prohibited by statute.	Exemption 3 statutes support withholding.
Whether the NSA properly interpreted Carter’s FOIA request as one about surveillance information.	Request was about personal information, not necessarily surveillance targets.	Request reasonably encompassed information about Carter in the context of NSA surveillance activities.	NSA interpretation was reasonable and appropriate.
Whether the declarations and supporting materials suffice to sustain the exemptions.	Declarations insufficient to prove classifications or statutory exemptions; deference due to national security concerns may be overextended.	Declarations are detailed, credible, and appropriately describe classifications and statutory grounds.	Declarations sufficient; no genuine factual dispute on exemptions.

Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2009) (summary judgment standard in FOIA actions)
Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (detail on when agency affidavits suffice in summary judgment)
Span v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 696 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2010) (specific-facts requirements to challenge withholding)
King v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (de novo review of FOIA exemptions with deference to national security expertise)
Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (exemption analysis and withheld information within Exemption 3)
Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, Inc., Not cited here (Not applicable) (Not applicable)
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Exemption 1 as applied to national security information)
Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (statutory basis for Exemption 3 applicability)
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. NSA, 678 F.3d 926 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Glomar response authority and governing standards)
Gardels v. CIA, 689 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Glomar response framework)
Bassiouni v. CIA, 392 F.3d 244 (7th Cir. 2004) (protective rationale for withholding sources/methods)
Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (importance of safeguarding intelligence methods)
Roth v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 642 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (role of agency affidavits and FOIA exemptions)