Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. United States Department of Justice
409 U.S. App. D.C. 113
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- FBI opened a wide-ranging public corruption probe related to Jack Abramoff; DeLay later publicly disclosed he would not be charged.
- CREW FOIA request sought FBI/DOJ records related to DeLay; FBI responded with Glomar stance citing third-party interests and public-benefit considerations.
- DOJ produced a Hardy Declaration describing two responsive document categories: FD-302s and investigative materials, with broad claims of categorically exempt material under Exemptions 7(A), 6, 7(C) and additional exemptions.
- District court granted summary judgment for the DOJ, approving categorical withholding under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) and alternative grounds under Exemptions 2, 3, 7(D), 7(E).
- CREW appealed, challenging the categorical withholding and seeking remand for more specific, category-based determinations.
- On appeal, court holds that Exemptions 7(C) and 7(A) cannot support blanket, categorical withholding and remands for more particularized showing; the record lacks sufficient detail to apply Exemptions 3, 7(D), 7(E) at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 7(C) supports categorical withholding | CREW argues broad withholding of all records should be rejected. | DOJ contends privacy interests justify categorical non-disclosure. | Categorical withholding under Exemption 7(C) improper; remand for case-by-case determination. |
| Whether Exemption 7(A) supports categorical withholding | Disclosures would not unduly interfere given lack of ongoing targeted investigation | DOJ says ongoing related investigations could be interfered with if released. | Categorical withholding under Exemption 7(A) not satisfied; remand for clarification of ongoing/related proceedings. |
| Whether Exemptions 3, 7(D), or 7(E) apply to portions of records with sufficient detail | Record supports disclosure of non-exempt material; exemptions insufficiently tied to documents. | Exemptions 3, 7(D), 7(E) apply to certain pieces; documents withheld accordingly. | DOJ provided insufficient detail to apply these exemptions; remand for document-specific justification. |
| Whether case should be remanded for more specific, category-based review | Judicial review requires disclosure consistent with FOIA’s goal of transparency. | Administrative process permits category-based defenses with proper justification. | Remand required for a more particularized, category-based analysis of exemptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (categorical handling; balancing in Exemption 7(C) must be contextual)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. Department of Justice, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (agency has burden; balance and public interest in FOIA exemptions)
- Favish v. Department of Justice, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (public interest in disclosure; requires sufficient showing of relevance)
- ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (narrowing categoricals; context-sensitive disclosures under FOIA)
- Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 214 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (Exemption 7(A) temporal limits and need for concrete proceedings)