170 F. Supp. 3d 147
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiff Ryan Shapiro (doctoral candidate/historian) submitted identical FOIA requests (Dec. 11, 2013) to CIA, NSA, DIA, and FBI for “any and all records … mentioning” Nelson Mandela (and three aliases).
- CIA declined to process the request, calling it “extremely broad” and arguing it did not "reasonably describe" records; moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- NSA issued a partial response: released one public Cryptolog item but issued a Glomar response (refuse to confirm/deny) as to intelligence records indicating whether Mandela was a SIGINT target or of SIGINT interest, invoking FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3; it moved for summary judgment.
- Shapiro filed suit before administrative appeals were completed, amended his complaint, and cross-moved for summary judgment arguing: (1) the NSA’s Glomar was improper because the agency already officially acknowledged the information; and (2) the NSA misread his request too narrowly (he sought all records mentioning Mandela, not only intelligence records).
- The Court denied the CIA’s motion to dismiss (request reasonably described records and CIA failed to show undue burden with required detail), granted the NSA summary judgment in part (Glomar valid as to SIGINT-target/interest records), and denied Shapiro’s cross-motion (no official acknowledgment found).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CIA FOIA request "reasonably describes" records (failure to exhaust) | Shapiro: request clearly seeks any records that "mention" Mandela; therefore reasonably described | CIA: request is vague/overbroad and would be unreasonably burdensome to locate; thus administrative remedies not exhausted | Denied CIA's motion — request reasonably describes records; CIA failed to show with specific detail that search would be unduly burdensome |
| Scope of Shapiro's FOIA request to NSA | Shapiro: requested "any and all records mentioning Mandela" (broad; includes non-intelligence records) | NSA: request sought only intelligence/SIGINT-related records; justified Glomar only for those | Court: request is broad; NSA mischaracterized scope and must address non-intelligence responsive records |
| Validity of NSA Glomar (refuse to confirm/deny existence of SIGINT-related records) | Shapiro: Glomar improper because public/official disclosures already acknowledge NSA interest | NSA: confirming/denying whether Mandela was a SIGINT target would reveal classified sources/methods and is protected by Exemptions 1 and 3 | Granted in part for SIGINT-target/interest records — Sherman declaration provides specific, plausible national-security justification; Glomar upheld for those records |
| Whether the information subject to Glomar was already officially acknowledged | Shapiro: cites multiple previously released documents (DoD releases, Intellipedia, NSA website, National Intelligence Daily, Special NIE, JCS history) that collectively prove official acknowledgment | NSA: prior releases do not specifically admit whether NSA targeted or considered Mandela SIGINT-interest | Court: Shapiro did not meet high burden to show the specific fact (existence/nonexistence of SIGINT targeting) was officially disclosed; Glomar stands for that fact |
Key Cases Cited
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (FOIA’s purpose and balancing against exemptions)
- U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1976) (FOIA’s role in piercing administrative secrecy)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (FOIA exemptions narrowly construed; presumption of disclosure)
- Yeager v. DEA, 678 F.2d 315 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (reasonable-description test focuses on whether agency can determine precisely what records are requested)
- Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Glomar responses allowed where FOIA exception harm would follow from confirming/denying existence)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency affidavits must provide specific detail to justify withholding)
- ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (prior official acknowledgment doctrine; similar information alone is insufficient)
- Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 11 F.3d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (high burden to show official acknowledgment defeats Glomar)