LEOPOLD v. PITTMAN, 630 F.Supp.3d 71

Background

Plaintiffs (Jason Leopold and Buzzfeed News) requested six categories of USCP/OIG records on Jan. 28, 2021 (including OIG semiannual reports, other OIG reports/audits, and USCP written directives in effect Jan. 6, 2021). Plaintiffs sued Feb. 23, 2021 seeking disclosure under the common-law public‑access right and 2 U.S.C. § 1909.
Defendants (Chief of U.S. Capitol Police and the USCP Inspector General, sued in official capacity) refused disclosure; since filing they produced many items but withheld: 101 written directives (classified “Law Enforcement Sensitive”; 65 of those designated "security information" under 2 U.S.C. § 1979), OIG semiannual reports (2015–present), and other OIG reports/audits (2008–present).
Defendants moved (styled as summary judgment) asserting sovereign immunity; the court treated the motion as a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to subject‑matter jurisdiction and assessed whether the Larson‑Dugan exception or statutory duties displaced sovereign immunity.
The court held that materials designated "security information" are governed by the statutory § 1979 disclosure scheme (preempting the common‑law access claim) and that the USCP Board’s 2017 order lawfully restricts public distribution of OIG materials.
Of the remaining 36 non‑security directives, the court found they are not "public records" under the D.C. Circuit test (they are internal, advisory/preliminary guidance) and, in any event, the government’s interest in secrecy outweighs any public interest.
The court also rejected plaintiffs’ statutory arguments under 2 U.S.C. § 1909, concluding § 1909 does not impose a public posting obligation for these OIG reports (it incorporated IG Act text as of §1909’s enactment and did not incorporate later amendments). The case was dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does sovereign immunity bar the suit seeking mandamus to compel disclosure?	Larson‑Dugan exception applies because defendants have a duty (common law or statutory) to disclose; no separate waiver needed for mandamus.	Sovereign immunity shields official‑capacity suits by Legislative Branch entities; no waiver and no basis for jurisdiction.	Dismissed: sovereign immunity bars suit because plaintiffs failed to show a duty that would trigger Larson‑Dugan for the withheld records.
Does the common‑law right of public access require disclosure of the withheld records?	The common‑law right extends to public records of all branches; plaintiffs seek a Vaughn‑style showing and say public interest outweighs secrecy.	Many records are statutorily protected or are internal/advisory and not "public records;" disclosure would harm security.	Denied: OIG reports and 65 directives are governed by the §1979 statutory scheme; remaining 36 directives are not "public records" and, even if they were, secrecy interests outweigh disclosure.
Does 2 U.S.C. § 1909 (and incorporated IG Act provisions) create a statutory duty to publicly post OIG reports/audits?	§1909(c) incorporates IG Act duties and therefore requires public posting of semiannual reports and audit reports.	§1909 does not incorporate later amendments (posting requirements) and does not impose a public‑posting duty for USCP OIG materials.	Denied: §1909(c) does not impose the asserted public‑posting obligations; later IG Act amendments are not incorporated.
Are the withheld materials "security information" immune from disclosure absent Board authorization under 2 U.S.C. §1979?	Plaintiffs argue common‑law access should apply; request judicial review of withholdings.	Many items are statutorily defined as "security information" and the USCP Board properly restricts release.	Held: §1979 preempts common‑law access for security information; Board’s determinations and 2017 order lawfully restrict public distribution.

Key Cases Cited

Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963) (articulates sovereign‑immunity principles and discusses ultra vires/specific‑relief exception)
Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Com. Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949) (establishes exception allowing suits against officers acting beyond statutory or constitutional authority)
Wash. Legal Found. v. U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, 89 F.3d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (applies common‑law access and Larson‑Dugan to nonjudicial records; duty‑based jurisdiction analysis)
Wash. Legal Found. v. U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, 17 F.3d 1446 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (sets two‑part test for common‑law public‑access: public‑record status and interest balancing)
Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (holds common‑law right of access extends beyond judicial records and recognizes statutory displacement)
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (recognizes general common‑law right to inspect public records subject to balancing)
Jam v. Int’l Fin. Corp., 139 S. Ct. 759 (2019) (a statute that incorporates another does so as of enactment, not including subsequent amendments)
Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text)
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity bars suit against the United States absent waiver)
Dhiab v. Trump, 852 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (government secrecy interests can defeat common‑law access claims)