Tuffly v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17801
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- In Feb 2013 DHS/ICE released several hundred non-citizens from detention for budgetary reasons and published redacted records for 149 released detainees omitting names and identifiers.
- USA Today obtained and published aggregated criminal-history information; two-thirds of the released had no criminal records, some had charges but not necessarily convictions.
- Edward Tuffly (union treasurer) submitted a FOIA request seeking records sufficient to identify the 149 detainees (names, release dates, supervision, later appearances/removals) to evaluate ICE’s release decisions.
- DHS/ICE withheld names and identifiers under FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C); Tuffly sued after administrative denial and district court granted summary judgment to the government under Exemption 7(C).
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether disclosure of names could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and whether any asserted public interest outweighed that privacy interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 7(C) protects detainees’ names | Tuffly: names needed to evaluate ICE’s release decisions and public risk; disclosure advances public interest | DHS: names would identify individuals as formerly detained and link to sensitive disclosed data, risking privacy harms | Court: Exemption 7(C) applies; disclosure could reasonably be expected to invade privacy |
| Whether a cognizable public interest exists and is significant | Tuffly: public interest in agency decision-making, exposing negligence/misconduct, and evaluating policy effects | DHS: agency decision-making already illuminated by provided criminal-history data; no specific evidence of misconduct; names add little | Court: Evaluating policy effects is a significant public interest, but other asserted interests (misconduct) unsupported |
| Whether disclosure is likely to advance the identified public interest | Tuffly: using names to search records/databases would allow assessment of post-release outcomes | DHS: names would minimally advance understanding; ad hoc tracing unlikely to produce reliable evidence tying outcomes to ICE decisions | Court: Disclosure is unlikely to materially advance public understanding; speculative benefit insufficient |
| Balancing privacy vs. public interest | Tuffly: public oversight of ICE outweighs privacy concerns | DHS: substantial privacy harms (stigma, harassment, linking to sensitive personal info) outweigh speculative benefits | Court: Privacy interests (heightened by immigration context and linked sensitive data) outweigh public interest; nondisclosure affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (establishes FOIA balancing and requirement that requester show a significant public interest likely to be advanced)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (privacy analysis focuses on disclosure of information concerning an individual rather than general government records)
- Lahr v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2009) (three-step Exemption 7(C) test and discussion of reasonable expectation of privacy invasion)
- U.S. Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991) (privacy exemptions apply even when risk of mistreatment is difficult to quantify)
- NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978) (FOIA’s purpose to ensure informed citizenry; contextual use in exemption analysis)
- Cameranesi v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 856 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2017) (recognizes embarrassment, stigma, and linking of identities to disclosed records as cognizable privacy harms)