National Security Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency
931 F. Supp. 2d 77
D.D.C.2013Background
- NSC and other plaintiffs sue CIA and ODNI under FOIA/APA alleging multiple FOIA/MDR requests and policies were mishandled between 2011 and 2012.
- CIA moved to dismiss nine of twenty-six counts; court grants in part and denies in part.
- The case centers on fourteen specific requests, four asserted policies, and a final MDR fee rule.
- Court holds four policy-or-practice claims lack standing and grants exhaustion-based dismissals for others.
- Court dismisses Count One (APA challenge to MDR fee rule) as a procedural-rule exemption; distances from the MDR fee rule.
- Counts Twenty-One and Twenty-Two remain viable challenges to CIA responses to specific requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have standing to pursue policy claims? | NSC/NSC-related plaintiffs allege ongoing injury from CIA policies. | CIA contends no concrete imminent injury; lacks ongoing injury from policy. | Plaintiffs lack standing; policy claims dismissed |
| Was administrative exhaustion satisfied for Counts Nineteen and Twenty-Six? | NSC constructively exhausted due to defective volume estimates in denials. | Constructive exhaustion requires 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A) timing and procedures. | NSC failed to exhaust; those claims dismissed |
| Do Counts Twenty-One and Twenty-Two survive challenging specific requests? | Sack’s reading of requests for CREST documents and later pages is broader than CIA’s interpretation. | CIA reasonably limited scope of Request #3 and denied as duplicative or duplicative | Counts Twenty-One and Twenty-Two survive (plaintiff plead viable claims) |
| Is the CIA’s Final MDR fee rule subject to notice-and-comment under the APA? | Final Rule altered MDR fee structure; not exempt from notice-and-comment. | Rule is procedural; exempt as a procedural rule under 5 U.S.C. § 553(b). | Count One dismissed for failure to state a claim; rule deemed procedural and exempt |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (three elements of standing)
- Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (constructive exhaustion under FOIA time limits)
- Wilbur v. CIA, 355 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (late administrative appeals can still exhaust)
- Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (policy-or-practice standing doctrine in FOIA)
- CREW/EOP, 587 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2008) (standing for FOIA policy-or-practice claims with pending requests)
- EPIC v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (notice-and-comment applicability where rights/privacy implicated)