234 F. Supp. 3d 26
D.D.C.2017Background
- Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning) was investigated and prosecuted for leaking classified materials to WikiLeaks; she pleaded guilty to some charges and was convicted and sentenced in 2013.
- In Feb–Mar 2014 Manning submitted FOIA requests to the FBI seeking records about the FBI/DOJ investigation into the WikiLeaks disclosures and records about suspected civilian co-conspirators.
- The FBI searched its Central Records System for records responsive to Manning’s name and variations and refused to disclose responsive records in April 2014, invoking FOIA Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing enforcement proceedings).
- The DOJ Office of Information Policy and the Office of Government Information Services upheld the FBI’s position; Manning sued in October 2015 challenging the categorical withholding and the agency’s segregability analysis.
- The FBI supported its withholding with two detailed declarations by David M. Hardy explaining: (1) an ongoing FBI investigation into civilian involvement (separate from Manning’s prosecution) remains open; (2) records were reviewed, categorized functionally, and withheld categorically because release would interfere with investigations; and (3) no reasonably segregable nonexempt material could be released.
- The District Court reviewed the declarations, found no evidence of bad faith or contrary facts from Manning, declined in camera review, and granted summary judgment to the DOJ/FBI under Exemption 7(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an ongoing investigation exists such that Exemption 7(A) applies | Manning: No — she was already prosecuted/convicted, so no prospective enforcement proceeding as to her | FBI: Yes — investigation into civilian co-conspirators remains active and disclosure would interfere | Held: Court accepts FBI declarations; an ongoing investigation of others exists, satisfying Exemption 7(A) |
| Whether FBI may use categorical withholding under Exemption 7(A) | Manning: FBI used impermissible blanket withholding and failed to justify categories or show document-by-document fit | FBI: Used permissible functional categories, performed document-by-document review to assign records, and explained how each category would interfere | Held: Categorical approach upheld; categories defined and link to interference explained |
| Whether records about Manning alone must be disclosed (CREW-related argument) | Manning: Records primarily about her cannot be withheld merely to protect investigation of others; must show how disclosure of her records would harm ongoing probe | FBI: Records are intermingled; no records exclusively about Manning; disclosure of her material would reveal investigative contours and harm ongoing probe | Held: Court credits FBI — materials about Manning are inextricably intertwined or would harm the investigation, so withholding proper |
| Whether the FBI satisfied segregability obligation (release of nonexempt portions) | Manning: FBI failed to perform timely, document-by-document segregability review and conflated exemption analysis with segregability | FBI: Conducted document-by-document review (prior familiarity expedited process) and concluded no reasonably segregable nonexempt material exists | Held: Court presumes agency compliance; Hardy’s declarations suffice to show segregability review and justify nondisclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (governing summary judgment standard and inferences)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (materiality/genuine dispute standard for summary judgment)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (weight and sufficiency of agency affidavits in FOIA cases)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (agency declarations must describe documents and justifications with reasonably specific detail)
- Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 715 F.3d 937 (affording substantial weight to adequate agency declarations)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (agency bears burden to show exemption applies)
- Goland v. Central Intelligence Agency, 607 F.2d 339 (showing that each document is produced, unidentifiable, or wholly exempt)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (segregability principle: information, not documents)
- Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106 (presumption agencies complied with segregability duty)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082 (limits on categorical withholding and requirement to show how disclosure would interfere)
- Juarez v. Dep’t of Justice, 518 F.3d 54 (ongoing investigation typically triggers Exemption 7(A))
- Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 789 F.2d 64 (need to trace rational link between document nature and claimed interference)
- Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (deference to agency predictive judgments in national security contexts)