Center for Constitutional Rights v. Central Intelligence Agency
765 F.3d 161
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- CCR FOIA requests sought videos, photographs, and recordings of Mohammed al-Qahtani from 2002–2005.
- DoD and FBI identified 62 responsive records: 53 FBI videos, one FCE video, two debriefing videos, and six mug shots.
- Responding agencies claimed Exemption 1, asserting properly classified records under Executive Order 13,526.
- Horst declared disclosure could harm national security by aiding extremist propaganda and recruitment.
- District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, denying disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 1 applies to the records | CCR argues the propaganda rationale is overbroad and would chill disclosure. | Government contends release could harm national security given al-Qahtani's profile. | Yes; records properly classified and exempt under Exemption 1. |
| Whether the government’s justification is logical and plausible | CCR contends disclosures undermine the justification due to prior releases. | Horst declaration supports plausible harm from release as propaganda. | Yes; record supports plausible national-security harm and sustainment of classification. |
| Impact of prior disclosures on the justification | Prior disclosures negate the need for withholding by reducing risk. | Public disclosures heighten al-Qahtani’s prominence and increase risk if released. | Recorded disclosures heighten risk; withholding remains appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardels v. CIA, 689 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (test for considering agency classifications in context)
- Wilner v. National Security Agency, 592 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2009) (deference to agency declarations in national-security FOIA cases)
- American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (government may withhold information about detainees under classification defenses)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 715 F.3d 937 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (plausibility of national-security harm from release of imagery)
- Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (foia exemptions must be contextually evaluated for injury potential)
- Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U.S. 218 (1928) (distinctions of law are often a matter of degree)
- Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1963) (importance of distinguishing real threat from mere shadow in security judgments)