Summary
This D.C. Circuit opinion reviews a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by journalist Seth Hettena against the Central Intelligence Agency over redactions in a report concerning an Iraqi national's death in CIA custody. While the court agrees that much of the redacted material is properly protected under national security exemptions, it finds the agency failed to adequately justify withholding the Inspector General's findings on potential obstruction and did not sufficiently address whether previously disclosed details trigger the official acknowledgment doctrine. Consequently, the appellate court vacates the district court's grant of summary judgment and remands the case for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the CIA’s redactions of the OIG report are justified under FOIA exemptions 1 and 3.
- Whether the CIA’s reliance on the official‑acknowledgment doctrine is proper with respect to statements about a ‘hood’ or ‘head cover.’
Holdings
- The CIA’s redactions are largely proper, but the agency failed to adequately justify redactions that conceal OIG findings on obstruction; those redactions must be disclosed.
- The CIA’s reliance on the doctrine is improper where the agency has not previously disclosed the specific statements; the doctrine does not automatically render all references to a hood or head cover public.
Key quotations
“FOIA requires agencies to "take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and release nonexempt information." 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(8)(A)(ii)(II).” (at 1)
“The agency cannot withhold an entire record simply because it contains some exempt information. See Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C. Cir. 1977).” (at 1)
Factual background
In 2003 the CIA captured Iraqi national al-Jamaidi, who died during interrogation at Abu Ghraib. The CIA’s Office of Inspector General produced a report on the death, which the CIA partially released under FOIA, redacting much of the content. Hettena, a journalist, sought full disclosure of the report. The CIA asserted exemptions for intelligence sources, methods, and classified information, while Hettena argued that redactions concerning OIG findings on obstruction were not covered by those exemptions.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment to the CIA, holding that its redactions complied with FOIA. Hettena appealed, arguing that certain redactions, particularly those concerning OIG findings on obstruction, were not properly justified.
Remand instructions
The district court shall develop the record further and obtain additional clarification from the CIA regarding the obstruction‑related redactions, including a possible ex‑parte declaration, consistent with FOIA’s segregation requirement.