Democracy Forward Foundation v. Office of Management and Budget
Civil Action No. 2025-0858
| D.D.C. | Apr 9, 2025Background
- In February 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing agencies to prepare plans for large-scale federal workforce reductions (RIFs); OMB and OPM subsequently required agencies to submit such plans.
- Democracy Forward Foundation (a nonprofit focused on government transparency) submitted three FOIA requests to OMB and OPM seeking these RIF plans and related communications, requesting expedited processing due to public interest.
- OMB and OPM did not respond within the statutory 10-day deadline for expedited processing determinations.
- Democracy Forward sued, alleging violation of FOIA’s expedited processing rules and sought a preliminary injunction to compel expedited review and immediate production of records.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the case was heard on cross-motions for preliminary injunction and dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Democracy Forward exhaust administrative remedies for its FOIA claims? | Agencies’ failure to respond within 10 days means exhaustion is deemed satisfied. | No exhaustion; claims premature as 20-day response period not expired. | Plaintiff constructively exhausted remedies by statutory deadline; motion denied. |
| Entitlement to expedited processing under FOIA for the RIF plan requests | Matter is of compelling public interest; delay would harm public’s right to know. | No compelling need; no imminent event justifying expedited treatment. | Expedite processing denied; not enough urgency/irreparable harm shown under FOIA. |
| Entitlement to preliminary injunction for production by a date certain | Delay irreparably harms public debate and oversight; records will lose value soon. | No irreparable harm; ongoing coverage shows no urgent need for records. | No preliminary injunction; threshold for mandatory injunction not met. |
| Whether court should prioritize these FOIA requests over others | Public importance justifies advancing these requests to the front of queue. | Would unfairly disadvantage other FOIA requestors with urgent needs. | Expedite denied to avoid disadvantaging others, per congressional intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Al-Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (sets standards for expedited FOIA processing and holds compelling need must be narrowly construed)
- Daily Caller v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2015) (discusses expedited FOIA processing and timing obligations)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) (FOIA’s primary purpose is to mandate disclosure)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (exhaustion in administrative FOIA process)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (standard for irreparable injury in preliminary injunctions)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for granting preliminary injunctions)