Royce Corley v. DOJ, 998 F.3d 981

Background:

Royce Corley was convicted in 2013 of sex trafficking and possession of child pornography; he filed three FOIA requests (two also invoking the Privacy Act) seeking records related to his prosecution and victims.
DOJ acknowledges receiving only the third request (to the FBI) and later processed the second (to the U.S. Attorney’s Office/Executive Office) after litigation; both agencies withheld records identifying Corley’s victims.
DOJ invoked FOIA Exemption 3, relying on the Child Victims’ and Child Witnesses’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d), to withhold names and other information concerning child victims; agencies also relied on Privacy Act exemptions for law‑enforcement records.
The district court granted summary judgment for DOJ in three opinions; Corley appealed and the court appointed amicus to brief key issues.
The principal contested questions were (1) whether § 3509 qualifies as an Exemption 3 withholding statute, (2) whether it covers records concerning victims who are now adults, (3) whether DOJ forfeited Privacy Act defenses, and (4) whether an early administrative appeal should have been treated as a new FOIA request.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 3509 is an Exemption 3 statute	§3509 does not categorically prohibit disclosure (subsec. d(4) allows disclosure to defendants), so it is not an Exemption 3 withholding statute	§3509 unambiguously requires that documents "shall" be kept secure and disclosed "only" to those with reason to know, thus qualifies as Exemption 3	Held: §3509 qualifies as an Exemption 3 statute
Whether §3509 protects records that "concern" victims who are now adults	"Concerning a child" refers to the subject's current age; once victims are adults the Act no longer applies	Documents may "concern a child" if they relate to the victim as a minor (age at time of offense/trial context), so protection survives later change in age	Held: §3509 covers documents concerning victims in their capacity as children even if victims are now adults
Whether DOJ forfeited Privacy Act defenses for the Executive Office production	DOJ waived Privacy Act defenses by indicating in reply brief it did not withhold under the Privacy Act	DOJ originally invoked Privacy Act exemption (5 U.S.C. §552a(j)(2)) and relevant regs in its motion; a stray reply statement did not constitute intentional waiver	Held: No forfeiture; DOJ did not intentionally waive Privacy Act defenses
Whether DOJ should have treated Corley’s premature administrative appeal as a new FOIA request	Corley’s appeal, with attached original request, should have been treated as a new request	Agencies are not required to treat an appeal as a new FOIA request absent a reasonably clear submission indicating such intent; DOJ reasonably treated it as an appeal	Held: DOJ properly treated the submission as an administrative appeal, not a new FOIA request

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Brice, 649 F.3d 793 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (§3509 forbids disclosure rather than creating an affirmative right of access)
Department of Justice v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1 (1988) (statutes that mandate disclosure are not Exemption 3 withholding statutes)
Larson v. Department of State, 565 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (two‑part showing for Exemption 3: statute qualifies and withheld material falls within it)
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 969 F.2d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (interpretation of Julian regarding disclosure language)
Loving v. Department of Defense, 550 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (FOIA requestor identity generally irrelevant to disclosure merits)
Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA principles on public disclosure and privacy)
Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (2012) (standard for waiver/intentional relinquishment of rights)
Truitt v. Department of State, 897 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (agency obligation when request reasonably describes desired materials)