American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Defense
628 F.3d 612, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1271, 393 U.S. App. D.C. 384 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) cases involving national security, courts must accord substantial weight to an agency's affidavit justifying withholding information. The agency's justification is sufficient if it appears logical and plausible, is not contradicted by evidence in the record, and shows no bad faith.
Facts:
- The United States operated a detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for detainees captured in the war on terror.
- In September 2006, President Bush announced that fourteen 'high value' detainees, previously held in a separate CIA program, were being transferred to Guantanamo Bay.
- Following their transfer, these detainees participated in hearings before Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs).
- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Department of Defense and the CIA seeking full CSRT transcripts and related records for these fourteen detainees.
- In response, the government released some documents entirely and others with redactions.
- The redacted information pertained to the capture, detention, and interrogation of the detainees.
- The government justified these redactions under FOIA exemptions 1 and 3, asserting the information constituted protected 'intelligence sources and methods'.
Procedural Posture:
- The ACLU filed suit against the Department of Defense and the CIA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the withholdings under FOIA.
- The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment.
- The ACLU, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- At the government's request, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court to allow the CIA to reprocess the documents in light of new executive orders and declassifications.
- After reprocessing the documents and making additional, limited disclosures, the government filed a new motion for summary judgment in the district court.
- The district court again granted the government's motion for summary judgment, finding the remaining redactions were justified.
- The ACLU, as appellant, appealed the district court's second summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's withholding of information related to the capture, detention, and interrogation of 'high value' detainees, under the Freedom of Information Act's exemptions 1 and 3 for national security and 'intelligence sources and methods,' violate its disclosure obligations, especially when similar information has been discussed in other declassified or leaked documents?
Opinions:
Majority - Sentelle
No, the government's withholding of information does not violate its FOIA obligations because the redacted details are properly protected under FOIA exemptions 1 and 3. The court reasoned that agencies are entitled to substantial deference in national security matters. For information to be considered 'officially acknowledged' and thus subject to mandatory release, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the information sought is as specific as that previously released, (2) it matches the previously disclosed information, and (3) the prior disclosure was official and documented. The ACLU's reliance on declassified OLC memoranda, the CIA Inspector General's report, and a leaked Red Cross report failed this test because those documents either discussed interrogation techniques in the abstract or were unofficial leaks, rather than revealing the specific operational details for each detainee. The court also rejected the argument that since the interrogation techniques were discontinued, they were no longer protectable 'intelligence methods,' finding no legal support for this claim. Finally, the CIA's affidavit plausibly and logically explained that disclosure would harm national security by revealing intelligence priorities, degrading interrogation capabilities, and damaging foreign relations, thus satisfying the requirement for exemption 1.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the high degree of judicial deference afforded to executive branch agencies in FOIA cases concerning national security. It solidifies the stringent 'officially acknowledged' test, making it difficult for plaintiffs to compel disclosure by pointing to unofficial leaks or general government statements on a topic. The ruling clarifies that even official disclosure of some information about a classified program does not waive the government's right to withhold other, more specific details. This precedent strengthens the government's ability to protect sensitive operational information, even concerning controversial and discontinued programs, by relying on plausible national security justifications presented in agency affidavits.
