Morales v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
220 F. Supp. 3d 1
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Rene Morales and Estela Villa Linares are married; Linares has been unable to enter the U.S. after a 2010 immigrant visa denial.
- Counsel submitted a FOIA request to DHS (June 25, 2014); DHS said it did not have the records and directed the request to the Department of State (DOS).
- DOS received the perfected FOIA request in December 2014 and initially estimated completion in December 2015, later extending the target to December 2016.
- Plaintiffs filed this FOIA suit on June 27, 2016 and simultaneously moved for an emergency order (characterized as a motion for a preliminary injunction) directing expedited processing and production, plus a Vaughn index, within 20 days.
- Plaintiffs did not seek administrative expedited processing from the agencies. Defendants were still locating and processing responsive documents when briefing concluded.
- The Court denied the emergency motion, finding Plaintiffs failed to meet the four preliminary-injunction factors and that allowing the request would improperly bypass the FOIA administrative scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should order immediate processing/production of FOIA records (preliminary injunction) | Need immediate relief to reunite with spouse; defendants have delayed and refused to provide a Vaughn index so merits can't be tested | Agencies are processing requests in ordinary queue; plaintiffs did not seek administrative expedited processing; court should not shortcut FOIA procedures | Denied — plaintiffs failed to meet preliminary-injunction burden; relief would bypass administrative process |
| Likelihood of success on merits of FOIA claims | Plaintiffs contend they cannot show exemptions because they have not received a Vaughn index | Defendants assert records may be exempt (consular file protections) | Plaintiffs did not demonstrate likelihood of success; court did not decide exemption merits but held burden rests with plaintiffs at this stage |
| Irreparable harm from delay | Plaintiffs claim ongoing inability to live together constitutes irreparable harm | Defendants note injury already exists for years, lack of causal certainty that records will secure entry, and administrative remedies remain | Denied — plaintiffs failed to show certain, irreparable, and beyond-remediation injury |
| Public interest and balance of equities (government as party) | Plaintiffs emphasize FOIA's public-accountability purpose | Defendants argue granting emergency relief for personal records would prejudice other requesters and undermine FOIA process | Denied — public interest and equities favor preserving FOIA administrative queue and discouraging court end-runs |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary; discusses Winter and sliding-scale approach)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (high standard for irreparable harm; must be certain and beyond remediation)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (public interest and balance of equities factors when government is opposing party)
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989) (FOIA’s purpose to ensure an informed citizenry)