Crisman v. Department of Justice

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants the defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment and denies the plaintiffs’ cross-motion in a case involving FOIA, Privacy Act, APA, and Fifth Amendment claims. The court finds that the agencies conducted adequate searches, properly invoked FOIA Exemption 3 and Glomar responses regarding watchlist information, and that the remaining claims concerning classification of a document are moot. The court also concludes that the FBI’s subdelegation of classification authority was permissible under binding D.C. Circuit precedent.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was appropriate for Defendants because the Justice Management Division conducted an extensive search that located no responsive records, and Plaintiffs did not oppose summary judgment on this count.
2. DHS and the other identified agencies were entitled to summary judgment because their declarations described searches of locations reasonably likely to contain responsive records with reasonable specificity, and Plaintiffs did not meaningfully challenge the searches.
3. The agencies properly relied on FOIA Exemption 3 and Glomar responses to decline to confirm or deny whether records existed concerning Crisman's placement on intelligence or transportation-security watchlists.
4. Counts 12, 13, and 15 were moot because the requested document had been produced and Plaintiffs failed to show an ongoing agency policy or practice that would impair future access to information.
5. The 1999 subdelegation of authority to the FBI Chief of the Document Classification Unit was permissible under Executive Order 12958 because subdelegation is presumptively permissible absent affirmative evidence of contrary intent, and the notification requirement ensured that the subdelegate acted under the direction of the designated senior official.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants demonstrated adequate searches for records responsive to Plaintiffs' FOIA and Privacy Act-related requests.
2. Whether the Department of Homeland Security properly invoked FOIA Exemption 3 and issued Glomar responses concerning possible watchlist information.
3. Whether Plaintiffs' claims concerning the FBI's post-request classification of the FISA Alert remained justiciable under the policy-or-practice exception to FOIA mootness.
4. Whether the 1999 delegation of authority to classify records after receipt of a FOIA request complied with Executive Order 12958.

Disposition

other