Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security
414 U.S. App. D.C. 151
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- EPIC filed a FOIA request for the Department of Homeland Security’s Standard Operating Procedure 303 (SOP 303), an Emergency Wireless Protocol addressing voluntary shutdown/restoration of cellular service during critical emergencies (e.g., to prevent radio‑activated IEDs).
- DHS located SOP 303 but produced only a heavily redacted version, withholding most text under FOIA Exemptions 7(E), 7(F), and personal‑privacy exemptions (6 and 7(C)).
- DHS submitted a declaration (Holzer) explaining that disclosure would enable bad actors to impersonate officials, circumvent verification procedures, and thereby cause detonation of explosives or otherwise endanger life/safety.
- The district court granted summary judgment to EPIC, holding that although SOP 303 was compiled for law‑enforcement purposes, Exemption 7(F) did not apply because DHS failed to identify with specificity the individuals who would be endangered by disclosure; it also rejected Exemption 7(E).
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether Exemption 7(F)’s plain text requires identifying specific individuals and whether SOP 303 may be withheld in whole or part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SOP 303 meets Exemption 7’s threshold ("compiled for law enforcement purposes") | EPIC argued the record did not fit law‑enforcement compilation scope for 7 | DHS argued SOP 303 was created to prevent criminal acts and protect public safety (law‑enforcement purpose) | Held: SOP 303 satisfies the Exemption 7 threshold (compiled for law enforcement) |
| Whether Exemption 7(F) requires the agency to identify with specificity the individuals endangered by disclosure | EPIC: 7(F) requires identification of specific individuals or a narrowly defined group (per 2d Cir. ACLU) | DHS: 7(F)’s plain text protects danger to “any individual”; agency need not identify particular persons before withholding | Held: Rejected the specificity requirement; 7(F) covers records whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual, without requiring pre‑identification |
| Whether Exemption 7(E) (techniques/procedures) applies to SOP 303 | EPIC: SOP 303 is not an investigatory technique or procedure warranting 7(E) exemption | DHS: SOP 303 contains procedures whose disclosure would reveal methods to deter or respond to IED threats and thus falls within 7(E) | Held: Court did not decide 7(E) because 7(F) sufficed to justify withholding; reserved 7(E) for later if needed |
| Remedy / segregability and further review | EPIC: seeks full disclosure or narrow redactions | DHS: asserts broad withholding but offered factual declaration; suggests in camera review if necessary | Held: Reversed district court; remanded for determination of segregability and whether more detailed affidavits or in camera review are appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Milner v. Dep’t of Navy, 131 S. Ct. 1259 (2011) (FOIA exemptions must be narrowly construed; statutory text controls)
- Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, 740 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (threshold for Exemption 7: records compiled for law‑enforcement purposes; emergency plans fall within 7)
- American Civil Liberties Union v. Dep’t of Defense, 543 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2008) (interpreted 7(F) to require some specificity in identifying individuals at risk)
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989) (Exemption interpretation and the FOIA’s presumption of disclosure)
- Juarez v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 518 F.3d 54 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (agency affidavits by knowledgeable officials can justify withholding; courts afford some deference)