Energy Policy Advocates v. United States Department of the Interior, Civil Action No. 2021-1247

On May 3, 2021 Energy Policy Advocates (EPA) submitted a FOIA request to the Department of the Interior seeking memoranda or documents from the Departmental Ethics Office relating to Elizabeth Klein and requested expedited processing.
EPA’s expedited request consisted of two short paragraphs asserting (1) urgent public need to know whether officials meet ethical obligations and (2) EPA’s status as an entity primarily engaged in disseminating information.
Interior denied expedited processing on May 5, 2021 (providing only a terse denial), and EPA filed suit on May 6 challenging that denial.
Interior subsequently completed a search identifying ~3,800 pages, released 424 pages, and committed to monthly disclosures to finish production in about five months.
The central legal question is whether EPA carried its burden to show a "compelling need" for expedited processing under FOIA — i.e., (a) that it is primarily engaged in disseminating information, and (b) that there is urgency to inform the public about actual or alleged Federal Government activity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EPA is a "person primarily engaged in disseminating information"	EPA asserted it has recognized media status and regularly publishes and distributes information online and via social media	Interior argued EPA did not demonstrate on the administrative record that dissemination is its primary function	Court: Administrative record did not conclusively show primary dissemination status, but resolution unnecessary because EPA failed on urgency element
Whether EPA demonstrated "urgency to inform the public" (compelling need)	EPA argued Klein's potential conflicts and recent coverage make the matter time-sensitive and of public interest	Interior argued EPA’s assertions were too general and did not show time-sensitive, widespread public exigency; agency had already begun productions	Court: EPA failed to meet the three-factor Al‑Fayed test (current exigency, harm from delay, federal government activity); denial affirmed
Whether Interior’s terse denial (no explanation) invalidated decision	EPA argued lack of stated basis violated the regulation requiring an explanation and warranted judgment in its favor	Interior noted the Court’s review is de novo based on the administrative record and emphasized requester bears burden to prove entitlement	Court: Although an explanation would be preferable, Interior’s terse denial did not prejudice EPA’s obligation to show compelling need; denial upheld

Al‑Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (expedited FOIA processing standard; compelling‑need categories narrow and three‑factor urgency inquiry)
Wadelton v. Dep’t of State, 941 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D.D.C. 2013) (limited media attention does not establish public exigency for expedition)
Landmark Legal Found. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 910 F. Supp. 2d 270 (D.D.C. 2012) (caution about treating non‑media organizations as primarily engaged in dissemination)
Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (FOIA cases typically resolved on summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment/genuine dispute standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (standard for determining genuine disputes on summary judgment)
Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standards in D.C. Circuit)
ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 321 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2004) (example of widespread public concern supporting expedited processing)