Public Citizen v. Department of State
30 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1365, 276 F.3d 634, 349 U.S. App. D.C. 291 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agency's blanket policy of using the date of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request as the cut-off date for its document search is unreasonable unless the agency provides a compelling, fact-based justification demonstrating that using a later cut-off date would result in an actual administrative nightmare.
Facts:
- Public Citizen, a non-profit public interest organization, frequently submits Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to government agencies.
- The U.S. Department of State had a general policy of using the date of a FOIA request as the cut-off date for its document searches, meaning no documents created after that date would be retrieved.
- In April 1998, Public Citizen sent a FOIA request to the State Department regarding its electronic records management.
- In its response, the Department acknowledged its date-of-request cut-off policy but stated it had waived the policy for this specific request as a "courtesy."
- In June 1998, Public Citizen submitted another FOIA request seeking documents related to international investment issues.
- The Department's acknowledgment letter for the June request explicitly stated that its standard date-of-request cut-off policy would be applied.
- The State Department's Central Foreign Policy File, which contains the most comprehensive records, also has the longest queue, leading to significant delays between a request's date and the search date.
Procedural Posture:
- Public Citizen sued the Department of State in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The complaint alleged the Department's date-of-request cut-off policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and was unreasonable under FOIA, and also challenged withholdings under the national security exemption.
- Public Citizen later amended its complaint to challenge the application of the cut-off policy to a subsequent request.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Department on the APA claim, finding the policy was a procedural rule exempt from notice-and-comment.
- The district court dismissed Public Citizen's challenges to the reasonableness of the cut-off policy as unripe.
- The district court largely upheld the Department's withholdings under the national security exemption.
- Public Citizen, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with the Department of State as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an agency's blanket policy of using the date of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request as the cut-off date for its document search unreasonable when the agency fails to provide a compelling administrative justification?
Opinions:
Majority - Tatel
Yes, an agency's blanket policy of using the date of a FOIA request as the cut-off for its search is unreasonable without a compelling justification. Following the precedent set in McGehee v. CIA, the court rejected the State Department's argument that abandoning its date-of-request cut-off policy would create an 'administrative nightmare.' The court found this claim to be unsubstantiated. It reasoned that the policy is counterproductive, as it forces requesters to file multiple, successive requests to obtain documents created during the lengthy processing period, thereby increasing the agency's own workload. The court suggested that, at a minimum, the agency could use a 'date-of-search' cut-off with minimal administrative hassle, which would result in a much fuller disclosure consistent with FOIA's purpose. The court also held that the cut-off policy was a 'rule of agency ... procedure' exempt from the APA's notice-and-comment requirements because it only encoded a judgment about efficiency, not a substantive value. Finally, the court affirmed the Department's withholding of certain documents under FOIA's national security exemption.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and expands upon the precedent from McGehee v. CIA, making it clear that federal agencies cannot reflexively apply a date-of-request cut-off for FOIA searches. The ruling places a significant evidentiary burden on agencies to prove with specific facts, not just conclusory statements, that a later cut-off is administratively unfeasible. By invalidating the State Department's blanket policy, the court promotes fuller disclosure under FOIA and prevents agencies from using processing delays to effectively shield recently created documents from public view. This holding significantly impacts FOIA litigation by empowering requesters to challenge such policies and requiring agencies to justify their search parameters on a case-by-case basis.
Unlock the full brief for Public Citizen v. Department of State