Islamic Shura Council v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
779 F. Supp. 2d 1114
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- FOIA requests were filed by six organizations and five individuals seeking records of FBI investigations of them.
- Initial FBI searches reportedly located few documents; CAIR and Mr. Ayloush were told no records, later one document each identified for them.
- In 2008–2009, FBI conducted additional searches; about 120 pages produced for nine plaintiffs, with extensive 'outside the scope' redactions.
- Plaintiffs challenged the 'outside the scope' redactions as improper and sought in camera review; Government later admitted misrepresenting findings.
- Court ultimately found the Government had misled the Court and vacated the April 20, 2009 order; deemed further searches unnecessary for Plaintiffs.
- Court emphasized that truthful factual representations are essential for FOIA review and rejected the notion that national security excuses deception to the judiciary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government mislead the court about FOIA searches? | Ayloush/CAIR: yes, government lied about results and scope. | Government: no improper deception; any exclusions justified by exemptions. | Yes; deception found, order vacated. |
| Does FOIA allow withholding information from the court via Exemption 7 and Subsection (c)? | Requests must yield all responsive information; mischaracterized as non-responsive. | Exemptions and exclusions may apply; some information can be withheld. | Exemption framework cannot permit lying to the court; Subsection (c) exclusions must be reviewed accurately. |
| Is it permissible to mislead a FOIA requester to protect national security under Subsection (c)? | Exclusions may be invoked without tipping off requesters. | Exclusions may be used, but not to mislead the court; safeguards exist for review. | No; Subsection (c) does not authorize misrepresentation to the court. |
| What is the proper remedy for government deception in FOIA litigation? | Court should enforce full disclosure and transparency. | Remedy limited; no need for further search; protect national security concerns. | Vacate the prior order; allow truthful review; reveal existence of other responsive documents without detailing content. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch.) 137 (U.S. 1803) (judicial duty to interpret law; courts must say what the law is)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1974) (court’s role in ensuring truth; perils of misleading government actions)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (false evidence violates due process; government must not mislead)
- Church of Scientology of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1980) (FOIA exemptions are narrowly construed; burden on agency to justify withholding)
- Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 635 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (FOIA does not permit government to withhold information from the court)
- Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir. 1989) (courts manage sensitive information and review classifications)