Haleem v. Department of Defense
Civil Action No. 2023-1471
| D.D.C. | Dec 18, 2024Background
- Plaintiff, Deen Haleem, is a U.S. Army Reservist whose Top Secret clearance was revoked by the Department of Defense (DOD), citing national security concerns.
- In 2022, Haleem requested documents related to his clearance revocation under the Privacy Act and FOIA; DOD (INSCOM) released 432 pages, withheld 113, and referred 33 to another command.
- Dissatisfied with redactions and withholdings, Haleem filed a nearly identical follow-up request in 2023 and, upon denial, brought suit against DOD and DOJ.
- The Court previously dismissed all claims except (1) whether INSCOM’s 2023 denial violated FOIA/Privacy Act, and (2) whether USARC’s delay in responding to the 2022 referral violated FOIA.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment; the Court conducted in camera review of the withheld documents.
- During the litigation, all referred documents from 2022 were processed and either released or withheld appropriately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion (Appeal of 2023 Withholdings) | Exhaustion satisfied because 2023 request and appeal gave agency opportunity to review withholdings. | Plaintiff failed to exhaust appeals on adequacy of search; duplicative requests don’t require merits review. | Exhaustion met only for withholdings, not for search adequacy; Court reviews merits of withholdings but not search. |
| Applicability of Privacy Act Exemption (k)(2) | Exemption doesn’t apply; Haleem would have clearance if not for the withheld records. | Exemption applies; the 113 pages weren’t relied on to revoke clearance. | Exemption justified; government affidavits show records weren’t relied on in revocation. |
| FOIA Exemption 7(E) (Law Enforcement Techniques) | Generic justifications for withholding under 7(E) are inadequate. | Withholdings valid; records reveal sensitive methods, risking circumvention. | Most withholdings justified; however, non-exempt, non-responsive pages (1–4, 9–12, 80–88) must be released. |
| Segregability of Non-Exempt Information | Overuse of exemptions; more non-exempt information should be segregated and released. | All non-exempt content already released; any further segregation not feasible or informative. | After in camera review, Court agrees—nothing more need be released from remaining pages. |
| Mootness (2022 Referral to USARC) | INSCOM "botched" referral, requests attorney fees. | Issue moot; all pages have now been processed and released or withheld properly. | Issue moot as all referred documents have been addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (materiality of facts on summary judgment)
- DOJ v. Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (FOIA burden on agency and de novo review)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (FOIA Exemption 7(E) requirements)
- Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (Exemption 7(E) and "risk of circumvention")
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (agency's obligation for detailed justification under FOIA)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (presumption of agency good faith in FOIA affidavits)