On January 31, 2006, AT&T telephone and internet customers filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against AT&T Corp. and AT&T Inc. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest and private counsel, asked the court to declare as unlawful the defendants' participation in the federal government's program to monitor and collect Americans' telephone and internet communications and sought an injunction against the defendants' continued or future participation in the program, claiming that the program was operated in violation of federal electronic surveillance and telecommunication statutes, as well as the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In 2006, the Multi District Litigation (MDL) Panel consolidated the case as the lead case in a multi-district litigation consolidation, In Re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, NS-CA-11, in this Clearinghouse. For information about what happened while the case was a part of the consolidation see NS-CA-0004. On May 13, 2006, the United States moved to intervene as a defendant. The motion was unopposed and the District Court (Judge Vaughn R. Walker) granted the motion at a June 23, 2006 hearing. AT&T and the United States separately moved to dismiss the lawsuit. On July 20, 2006, the Court denied both motions to dismiss. Judge Walker ruled that the government could not rely on the state secrets privilege and that a telecom defendant could not assert immunity. The Court, however, certified the case for immediate appeal. Hepting v. AT & T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2006). The defendants' appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 26, 2007, the Ninth Circuit consolidated Al-Haramain v. Bush, No. 06-36083, with this case. However, on November 16, 2007, the Ninth Circuit severed the two cases from each other and ordered that the cases would no longer be consolidated for any purpose. Hepting v. AT & T Corp., 508 F.3d 898, 899 (9th Cir. 2007). Oral argument was heard in August 2007. Prior to any Ninth Circuit decision, in July 2008, Congress enacted and President George Bush signed, the FISA Amendments Act that granted retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies for past violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") provided that the Attorney General of the United States certified to the relevant U.S. District Court that the surveillance did not occur, was legal, or was authorized by the president. The case was returned to the District Court in light of the FISA Amendments Act. Hepting v. AT & T Corp., 539 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008). Attorney General Michael Mukasey filed the requisite certification in September 2008 and the United States moved to dismiss all claims against telecommunication company defendants in this lawsuit as well as dozens of other lawsuits that were ordered to be consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a multidistrict litigation proceeding. On June 3, 2009, the District Court (U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker) granted the United States' motion to dismiss based upon the retroactive immunity provision in the the FISA Amendments Act. Judge Walker dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, but without prejudice, saying that the plaintiffs could re-file if there was evidence of improper surveillance that fell outside the telecoms' immunity period found in the FISA amendments, which extended from Sept. 11, 2001 to Jan. 7, 2007. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. On December 29, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Harry Pregerson, Michael Daly Hawkins, and M. Margaret McKeown) affirmed the District Court's dismissal. However, Judge McKeown disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the immunity provisions were temporally limited. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on October 9, 2012. The case is now closed.

Summary: On January 31, 2006, subscribers to or customers of telephone or internet services that AT&T provided filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against AT&T Corp. and AT&T Inc., claiming that the defendants' participation in the federal government's program to monitor and collect Americans' telephone and internet communications was unlawful. The United States quickly intervened as a defendant. The lawsuit was dismissed based upon retroactive legislation. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.


On March 12, 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The ACLU-NC claimed that it submitted a FOIA request to both TSA Headquarters and TSA's San Francisco Field Office for documents relating to searches of electronic devices of airline passengers, but neither provided any records. The plaintiff sought an order for the TSA to promptly process and release all responsive records, and a declaration that TSA's failure to disclose the requested records was unlawful. The plaintiffs claimed that the TSA violated FOIA by wrongfully withholding records, and specifically, they claimed that the TSA's searches of electronic devices at airports and borders (particularly of domestic air passengers) were a matter of significant public interest. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. The TSA moved to dismiss the complaint on June 13, 2018, claiming that (1) the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) the TSA performed a reasonable and adequate search for records in response to the plaintiff's FOIA request; (3) the TSA lawfully and appropriately withheld information exempt from disclosure under the FOIA; and (4) the lawsuit was not necessary for the plaintiff to get the information it was entitled to under the FOIA. Between June and July 2018, the ACLU-NC and the TSA stipulated that they were working in good faith to resolve some of the claims and issues in this action. On August 9, 2018, the parties acknowledged that there were no prior or pending motions, and that they anticipated the matter could be resolved on summary judgment. TSA filed notice of settlement on December 20, 2018. According the the ACLU of Northern California's website, "TSA ultimately provided a letter stating that it does not conduct device searches and that its personnel abide by TSA Standard Operating Procedures that do not allow device searches of passengers." On January 2, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion stipulating to the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice. The case is now closed.

Summary: In March 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff alleged that the Transportation Security Administration violated the Freedom of Information Act for wrongfully withholding its records about electronic device searches. The TSA ultimately provided a letter stating it does not conduct device searches, and the ACLU agreed to dismiss the case.


This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint, filed June 27, 2017, seeks to enhance knowledge about discriminatory immigration policy regarding Muslims, Latinos, and other members of groups disfavored by the Department of State (DOS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs are two non-profit organizations: Council on American-Islamic Relations - Connecticut (CAIR-CT) and Make the Road New York (MRNY). In the complaint, they cited various examples of anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric from President Trump, as well as the Trump administration's Executive Orders banning entry into the United States of individuals from certain majority-Muslim countries. The plaintiffs argued that these incidents directly impacted their work of enhancing public understanding of Islam and empowering immigrant and working-class communities. The plaintiffs submitted three FOIA requests in furtherance of their work to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and DOS. According to the complaint, the FOIA requests sought greater understanding of the administration's immigration enforcement policies out of a concern that the defendants have targeted individuals on the basis of actual or perceived religion, ethnicity, race, or national origin in enforcing their immigration policies. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought "disclosure of agency policies, communications, and statistics related to visa processing and visa issuances for individuals applying abroad; to adjudication of entry document applications; and to screening and searching of individuals arriving at U.S. ports of entry." After the defendants did not produce any responsive records, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and "to compel the disclosure and release of urgently needed records." The case was assigned to Judge Alfred V. Covello. The parties entered into settlement negotiations, which remain active. On Jan. 26, 2018, the parties filed a status report indicating the defendants had completed their search for potentially responsive documents. The government was to produce the first set of documents on or before Feb. 23, 2018, with further productions made on a rolling basis every six weeks through June 2018. The parties agreed to work together on a list of search terms for the government to use. Status reports filed March through November indicated the production was progressing and that the parties would confer about any anticipated changes to the timeline. The parties filed a joint motion to transfer the case to a Magistrate Judge on August 5, 2019. The court granted this motion; the case was transferred to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector on August 15, 2019. The defendants filed a motion to stay and extend the production schedule on April 2, 2020. Magistrate Judge Spector granted this motion on the following day; under the new order, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), a DHS agency, would be required to produce 1,500 pages per six-week reporting period. About six weeks later, the defendants filed a consent motion to modify the production schedule on May 18, 2020. The motion noted that CBP had largely complied with the production schedule, and that the remaining documents would require cooperation across different agencies to produce and analyze. Magistrate Judge Spector granted the motion, and removed production page limits for CBP for the next reporting period, though the agency needed to keep the parties abreast on updates for the remaining material. The next status report is due on June 19, 2020. The case is ongoing.

Summary: This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint, filed on June 27, 2017, seeks to enhance knowledge about discriminatory immigration policy regarding Muslims, Latinos, and other members of groups disfavored by the Department of State (DOS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). According to the complaint, the FOIA requests sought greater understanding of the administration's immigration enforcement policies out of a concern that the defendants have targeted individuals on the basis of actual or perceived religion, ethnicity, race, or national origin in enforcing their immigration policies. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought "disclosure of agency policies, communications, and statistics related to visa processing and visa issuances for individuals applying abroad; to adjudication of entry document applications; and to screening and searching of individuals arriving at U.S. ports of entry." The case is ongoing.


On January 3, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the government seeking disclosure of documents related to the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) use of predator drones for the purpose of targeted killings of individuals, including a United States citizen. The Departments of Defense, Justice, and State provided some records but the CIA denied the request in a "Glomar" response, which declines either to confirm or deny the existence of any records. The ACLU filed an administrative appeal to the CIA in April 2010, but the agency failed to make a determination within the FOIA statutorily established timeline. The ACLU filed suit on June 1, 2010 against the government in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) and requesting injunctive relief in the form of disclosure of the requested documents. Under court supervision, the Departments of Defense, Justice, and State conferred with the ACLU and produced documents according to a mutually agreeable schedule. The CIA, however, moved for summary judgment in October 2010, arguing that whether it possessed the documents was itself exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemptions. The CIA argued that admitting the very existence of the documents would reveal whether it was involved or interested in drone strikes, which was classified information. The ACLU cross-filed for summary judgment and asserted that the CIA Director and other officials had already publicly acknowledged the existence of the drone program. The district court granted the CIA's motion for summary judgment on September 9, 2011. American Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Justice, 808 F. Supp. 2d 280 (D.D.C. 2011). The ACLU appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on November 9, 2011. The D.C. Circuit Court found the CIA's Glomar response was not justified. American Civil Liberties Union v. Central Intelligence Agency, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Citing numerous examples of public statements by U.S. officials like the President and CIA Director, the court found it "implausible that the CIA does not possess a single document on the subject of drone strikes." 710 F.3d at 430. In March 2013, the case was remanded to the district court for determination of the kinds of documents that the CIA possesses and whether exemptions apply to those documents. In May, the district court ordered briefing for summary judgment, following the recommendation of the CIA's briefing schedule. The schedule was delayed multiple times due to a series of government budget crises in the Fall of 2013. On February 12, 2014, the ACLU sent a notice to the court of a congressional transcript where the CIA publicly acknowledged drone operations. The court ordered a supplemental brief from the CIA regarding this public disclosure. On, June 6, 2014, the court granted the CIA's motion to stay the proceedings until the completion of any further review of a recent decision in the Second Circuit that involved FOIA requests for some similar types of records. New York Times Co. v. DOJ, 752 F.3d 123 (2nd Cir., April 21, 2014). The Second Circuit revised and superseded their opinion on June 23, 2014, finding that the government's secrecy and privilege had been waived for some of the documents containing legal analysis relating to drone strikes. New York Times Co. v. DOJ, 756 F.3d 100 (2nd Cir., July 10, 2014). On July 25, 2014, the court granted the defendant's request to dismiss the summary judgment motion. The court also found that the recent developments required further briefing and denied the ACLU's partial summary judgment without prejudice and scheduled further briefing. On November 25, 2014, the CIA moved for summary judgement. In response, the ACLU filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On June 18, 2015, the district court granted summary judgment and denied ACLU's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court held that the CIA had demonstrated that it has not withheld any segregable, non-exempt materials other than previously disclosed White Paper and therefore denied ACLU’s request that it order the CIA to do so. 109 F.Supp.3d 220. On July 29, 2015, the ACLU appealed. On April 21, 2016, the DC Court of Appeals affirmed the judgement of the District Court, holding that the records were properly classified and therefore withheld under FOIA Exemption. 640 Fed.Appx. 9. On October 14, 2016, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Summary: The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in June 2010 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Central Intelligence Agency, alleging FOIA violations related to the ACLU's request for documents about the CIA's involvement in predator drone strikes. The D.C. District Court granted the CIA's motion to dismiss, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case in March 2013 for determination what documents the CIA possessed. On June 18, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment for the CIA.


In June 2009, the plaintiff, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to defendant National Security Agency (NSA) for records related to National Security Presidential Directive 54 (NSPD 54) and to the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI). The defendant released several redacted documents. However, it informed the plaintiff that it had no records responsive to the Cybersecurity Initiative, and records responsive to the NSPD 54 request were withheld under FOIA exemptions for inter-agency memoranda, classified information, and presidential communications privilege. The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, and brought suit in United States District Court for the District of Columbia in February 2009 against NSA and the National Security Council (NSC) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, seeking production of the records and a Vaughn index of withheld records and applicable exemptions. In July 2011, Judge Beryl A. Howell dismissed the NSC as a defendant because it was not an "agency" within the meaning of FOIA. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment in late 2011. Nearly two years later, in October 2013, the Court (Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell) ruled that NSPD 54 was not an agency record at all because it originated with the President or the NSC, and contained clear limits on its use and further dissemination. Thus, NSPD 54 was "the type of document that is generally not ordered disclosed under the FOIA." However, the Court ruled that several portions of the plaintiff's FOIA request survived because the requested records originated within the Defendant. The Defendant was ordered to produce those responsive records or to submit a Vaughn index detailing the records and applicable exemptions. 2013 WL 5701645. On December 17, 2013, plaintiff appealed the October 2013 order, seeking review of whether the district court erred in holding that a Presidential Directive in the possession of a federal agency is not an agency record subject to FOIA. On June 5, 2014, defendant released an unclassified version of NSPD 54 to the plaintiff. On June 9, 2014, the parties jointly moved to dismiss plaintiff's appeal as moot, vacate the district court order holding that a Presidential Directive in the possession of a federal agency is not an agency record subject to FOIA, and remand to address any claim for fees. The Court (Judge Judith W. Rogers, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Senior Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg) granted the order and remanded the case on July 31, 2014. 2014 WL 12596363. The plaintiff moved for attorney fees and costs on October 31, 2014. The plaintiff sought $68,354.01 in attorneys' fees and $730.28 in costs, including fees and costs incurred prior to the January Judgment. The defendant argued that since the plaintiff was not the prevailing party under FOIA, they were not entitled to attorney's fees. Alternatively, the defendant contended that the plaintiff could not seek any fees for the period prior to the January Judgment and sought modification of the fees after the January judgment. The Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion on April 8, 2015. The Court held that the plaintiff was the prevailing party as the initial withholding of NSPD 54 was not correct as a matter of law because the Court's initial order regarding NSPD 54 was vacated. Since the defendant voluntarily released NSPD 54 to the plaintiff and requested the vacatur of the prior holding, the defendant had appeared to change its position regarding the requested information, thus, the plaintiff prevailed. The Court held the plaintiff was not able to recover fees and costs prior to January 27, 2014 as they were covered by the January Judgment. The Court also disallowed fees incurred by the plaintiff after October 1, 2014. The Court found that since the plaintiff offered two settlement agreements within 24 hours of the deadline for the parties to provide a status report to the Court and immediately withdrew them once the submission was filed, the plaintiff prolonged litigation. As such, the plaintiff was not allowed to recover fees following the withdrawal of their first settlement offer on October 1, 2014. Following these fee deductions, the defendant was ordered to pay $31,180 in attorneys' fees and costs. 87 F.Supp.3d 223. On April 8, 2015, the plaintiff moved to alter judgment regarding the Court's April 2015 order. On May 20, 2015, the Court granted the motion so as to amend the word "judgment" to "settlement" at one point in their opinion and otherwise denied their motion. (See Docket). The case is now closed.

Summary: In June 2009, plaintiff Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to defendant National Security Agency (NSA) for records related to National Security Presidential Directive 54 (NSPD 54), aka Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 that was issued by President George W. Bush in January 2009, and to the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI). in October 2013, the district court ruled that NSPD 54 is not an agency record at all because it originated with the President or the NSC, and contained clear limits on its use and further dissemination. Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Nat'l Security Agency, -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2013 WL 5701645, (D.D.C. Oct. 21, 2013).


On November 19, 2012, an individual plaintiff and National Security Counselors filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Justice, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), the Privacy Act (collectively “FOIA/PA”), the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, and the All Writs Act. They sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. The case was assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. The individual plaintiff had been employed as a nurse at the Federal Reserve Board’s headquarters. In 2004, the Miami Field Office of the FBI received a document marked “FISA Alert Report Form” from the Financial Institution Security Association (“FISA”), requesting information on the plaintiff. FBI staff misunderstood the marking, reading “FISA Alert Report Form” to mean “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Alert Form.” Because the document was misinterpreted to be a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act alert, the plaintiff’s name was subsequently added to national and homeland security watchlists, and she was fired. She submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to each of the defendant agencies, seeking records related to FISA alerts and records indicating whether her name appeared on the government’s No Fly List. However, the agencies did not produce responsive documents, and after unsuccessfully filing an earlier lawsuit (<i>Crisman v. DOJ</i>, D.D.C. docket number 11-cv-658), the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit seeking to compel production of documents. On May 2, 2013, the court ordered the parties to engage in settlement negotiations. On August 15, 2013, the agencies moved for mediation. The following month, the court declined to appoint a mediator. On December 3, 2013, the agencies filed a motion for summary judgment, indicating that the government agencies had released reasonably segregable materials, conducted reasonable searches, and provided Vaughn indices (declarations explaining the justification for withholding requested documents). The case was reassigned to District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in June 2014. On September 18, 2018, the court granted summary judgment to the agencies on most of the issues raised in the complaint. 332 F. Supp. 3d 139. On July 30, 2020, the agencies filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on the remaining issues; as of August 14, 2020, that motion is pending.

Summary: When the FBI received in 2004 a “FISA Alert Report Form” seeking information on the plaintiff in this case, it was assumed to be related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, when it was in fact merely from a private company called Financial Institutions Security Association. As a result of the misunderstanding, the plaintiff’s name was erroneously placed on government watchlists, and she was fired from her job as a nurse working at the Federal Reserve Board. After unsuccessfully filing a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records relating to the error, she brought this lawsuit against several federal agencies, seeking to force the agencies to produce the requested records.


This lawsuit is a result of a consolidation of two separate cases. On January 19, 2006, Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EIPC) first filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5. U.S.C § 552 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On February 7, 2006, American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (collectively, “the ACLU”) and the National Security Archive Fund filed a complaint against DOJ under FOIA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. All plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, seeking the immediate release of records requested by the plaintiffs from DOJ, which dealt with the NSA’s secret surveillance program to intercept, without prior judicial authorization, the telephone and Internet communications of people inside the United States. The two cases were consolidated on February 9, 2016. See this Order. On February 16, 2006, the district court (Judge H. Kennedy, Jr.) granted EPIC’s motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered the defendant to complete the processing of EPIC’s December 16, 2005 FOIA requests and produce or identify all responsive records within 20 days of the date of this order. 416 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006). The defendant filed a motion to stay the district court’s order, which was granted on March 7, 2006. On September 15, 2006, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion. On September 5, 2007, Judge Kennedy ordered that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denied in part, and held in abeyance in part, and that the plaintiffs’ motion for in camera review must be denied without prejudice. For the documents that must be released, the defendant must submit to the court a detailed, document-by-document Vaughn index and declarations justifying the various departments’ withholding decisions. 511 F.Supp.2d 56 (D.D.C. 2007) . On October 19, 2007, the defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment. In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the second motion. On October 31, 2008, Judge Kennedy concluded that the defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment must be granted in part and denied in part, and that plaintiffs' renewed motion for in camera review must be granted in part and denied in part. Judge Kennedy ordered the defendant to submit ten memoranda of the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) to the court for in camera review to determine the propriety of the DOJ’s withholding of those documents. See 584 F.Supp.2d 65 (D.D.C. 2008). Litigation continued and on January 14, 2011, the parties jointly stipulated that the defendant would review the OLC memoranda as ordered by the court and disclose any segregable portions. On March 24, 2011, the defendant submitted to the court the portions of two OLC documents. This case was reassigned to Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth. On March 31, 2014, Judge Lamberth granted the defendant’s second motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the defendant properly decided to withhold ten records under Exemptions One, Three and Five, as each record contains confidential, legal advice protected by attorney-client communications privilege. 2014 WL 1279280. This case was dismissed with prejudice.

Summary: On February 7, 2006, the plaintiffs, the ACLU and National Security Archive Fund, brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, seeking the immediate release of records requested by the plaintiffs from the defendant DOJ. This was consolidated with another case, Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice, in which plaintiff Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) brought a FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ. On February 16, 2006, the district court (Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.) granted the EPIC’s motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered that DOJ shall complete the processing of EPIC’s December 16, 2005 FOIA requests and produce or identify all responsive records. This case was dismissed in March 2014.


On Mar. 3, 2017, plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah Shachtman sued the defendant agencies under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The James Madison Project (JMP) is an organization established "to promote government accountability of reduction of secrecy, as well as [to educate] the public on issues relating to intelligence and national security." Noah Shachtman is the current Editor-in-Chief (Executive Editor at the start of this lawsuit) of news website The Daily Beast. Plaintiffs sought disclosure of agency records by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as well as by DHS's subordinate entities: the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Specifically, plaintiffs sought the disclosure of records that would shed light on the degree to which (if at all) the defendant federal agencies were consulted prior and subsequent to the implementation of President Trump's Jan. 27 Executive Order 13769 (EO). The complaint alleged that on Jan. 31, 2017, plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request to the defendant federal agencies seeking copies of records that memorialize the following: 1. Discussions between defendant agency staff and private/White House staff regarding the legality and implementation of an EO barring entry of foreign nationals based strictly on nationality; 2. Discussions between defendant agency staff and other federal agency staff regarding such an EO; 3. Discussions among defendant agency staff regarding such an EO; 4. Discussions between defendant agency staff and Members of Congress regarding such an EO; 5. Final determinations by defendant agency staff regarding the extent to which such an EO would apply to U.S. citizens with dual citizenship; and 6. Final determinations by defendant agency staff regarding the legality of such an EO. The complaint further alleged that, to date, plaintiffs had not received a substantive response from any of the defendant agencies, and that plaintiffs had constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies. Plaintiffs sought a disclosure order under FOIA, legal fees, and expedited action. (That same day, the James Madison Project and staff of Politico also filed another FOIA lawsuit seeking intra- and inter-agency communications relating to communications between DHS's agencies and airlines. That lawsuit is described here.) On Mar. 3, the case was assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. On Mar. 6, 2017, the President rescinded the Jan. 27 EO and replaced it with a narrower one, Executive Order 13780. On May 8, plaintiffs requested leave to file the first amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that, on Mar. 24, 2017, plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request to the defendant agencies seeking the same information that they sought in the original Jan. 31 FOIA request, but clarified that the scope of information should encompass both EOs. Plaintiffs specifically asked that the defendant agencies use, but not limit themselves to, the search terms "religious test," "Christian ban," "Jewish ban," and "Muslim ban." Plaintiffs further alleged that, to date, they had not received a substantive response from any of the defendant agencies. Plaintiffs sought a disclosure order under FOIA, legal fees, and expedited action. On Jun. 16, the parties filed a joint status report noting that all defendant agencies had received and were processing plaintiffs' FOIA requests. The TSA had completed its processing of the request; the parties were not able to provide estimated release dates for the rest of the agencies. On Jul. 21, the parties filed a joint status report indicating that the government had initiated searches for the requested documents, that some responsive materials had already been produced, and that the parties were conferring regarding the remaining documents. On Sept. 5, the parties filed another status report indicating that the government continued to make progress on its searches, and that the parties conferred about the scope of the plaintiffs' request. On Jan. 19, 2018, the status report noted that DHS was processing approximately 600 potentially responsive records, and 600 others which it would review for responsiveness. The status report of Mar. 20 noted that ICE and USCIS would aim to complete production in the next month, whereas CBP, DHS, and DOJ had longer timeframes to complete production and would continue with monthly releases. Status reports filed in May through November indicated that the agencies were each in various stages of completing the production. ICE and USCIS had completed production by the Jan. 2019 status report, while TSA had completed its production according to the July 2019 status report. All other agencies are currently in varying stages of production, with status reports due every 60 days. Though the documents released by the government are not available online, this news article references some of their contents. The case is ongoing as of June 6, 2020.

Summary: On Mar. 3, 2017, plaintiffs The James Madison Project and the news website The Daily Beast's executive editor sued various federal agencies under FOIA, seeking disclosure of agency records related to the implementation of President Trump's Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order. Production is ongoing as of June 6.


On May 2, 2017, the non-profit organization Muslim Advocates filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The suit aimed to shed light on the government's border searches of electronic devices in the possession of persons from the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by President Trump's Jan. 27 and Mar. 6 Executive Orders (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen). Plaintiff additionally aimed to learn about the government's border searches of electronic devices in the possession of all persons -- including U.S. citizens -- whom U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents "perceived to be Muslim." Plaintiff contended that DHS had yet to make the requested records available. Plaintiff, represented by the MacArthur Justice Center, Jenner & Block, and the National Lawyers Guild, therefore filed this suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. In the complaint, plaintiff argued that it had submitted its FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Mar. 7, 2017. Specifically, plaintiff sought the following: 1. Records created on or after Jan. 24, 2017 related to CBP's search, review, retention, and dissemination of information located on or accessed through electronic devices in the possession of individuals who were encountered by CBP at the border (and the border's functional equivalents); and 2. Records created on or after Feb. 27, 2017 that pertained to the second Executive Order and were otherwise responsive to the first request. On May 2, this case was assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. Also on May 2, plaintiff filed notice that it believed this case should be marked related to Knight First Amendment Institute v. DHS. On Aug. 4, Oct. 6, and Nov. 3, the parties filed joint status reports discussing the progress of the search and document turnover. On Nov. 28, the parties met for a status conference before Judge Chutkan, who ordered that the government, by Dec. 19, provide plaintiff with an estimate regarding the completion date of document production. The next status report of Jan. 29, 2018, detailed the parties' discussions about search terms. Plaintiff reported that CBP had estimated it would finish production by Sept. 2018 and DHS had provided no estimate. Plaintiff sought an earlier production, but defendants asserted they needed this time to properly review documents before releasing them. After a Feb. 21, 2018 status conference, Judge Chutkan ordered CBP to produce 275 pages per month. A May 14 order clarified that CBP was to process 500 email record pages per month and also 275 pages of incident-level reports per month. DHS was to process 775 email record and complaint pages per month. July and September status reports indicated the government's review and production were underway. Production of documents and status reports continued until Jan. 22, 2019, when the case was stayed until Congress restored appropriations to the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The stay was lifted on Feb. 27, 2019, and production of documents continued. The parties have been submitting status reports regularly. As of Apr. 14, 2020, this case is ongoing.

Summary: Muslim Advocates filed this suit against DHS under FOIA, seeking information regarding the government's border searches of electronic devices in the possession of persons from the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by President Trump's Jan. 27 and Mar. 6 Executive Orders, as well as by all persons whom CBP agents "perceived to be Muslim."


On May 2, 2017, the Protect Democracy Project filed this suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). According to the complaint, plaintiff is an organization seeking to "protect our democracy from descending into a more autocratic form of government by preventing those in power from depriving Americans of a free, fair, and fully-informed opportunity to exercise ultimate sovereignty." As part of its activities, plaintiff aims to inform the public about executive branch activity, including by filing FOIA requests and releasing the results on its website. Plaintiff sought disclosure of agency records by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that will shed light on the degree to which (if at all) the agency was consulted prior and subsequent to the implementation of President Trump's Jan. 27 Executive Order 13769, the order restricting travel by nationals of 7 majority-Muslim countries. The complaint alleged that on Feb. 15, 2017, plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to DOJ seeking copies of records that memorialized the following: 1. Whether DOJ reviewed the EO before it was issued; 2. Whether the EO was transmitted to DOJ for review, comment, or awareness; 3. Whether there was any decision to seek or not seek input from DOJ on creating or implementing the EO; 4. Whether there was any process to obtain DOJ review of the EO; 5. Whether any other federal agency personnel reviewed the EO before it was issued. The complaint further alleged that, to date, plaintiff had not received a substantive response from DOJ. Plaintiff sought a disclosure order under FOIA and sought legal fees. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and was assigned to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell. That same day, plaintiff filed another, similar, FOIA lawsuit against the Office of Management and Budget, described here. On June 9, DOJ filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the two cases; Judge Howell granted the motion on June 12. The case was re-assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta on June 15. The cases have now been consolidated and continue at NS-DC-0112 in this Clearinghouse.

Summary: On May 2, 2017, the Protect Democracy Project sued DOJ under FOIA seeking records on whether DOJ was consulted regarding the travel ban EO. This case has been consolidated into and continues at NS-DC-0112.


On May 2, 2017, the Protect Democracy Project filed this lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). According to the complaint, plaintiff is an organization seeking to "protect our democracy from descending into a more autocratic form of government by preventing those in power from depriving Americans of a free, fair, and fully-informed opportunity to exercise ultimate sovereignty." As part of its activities, plaintiff aims to inform the public about executive branch activity, including by filing FOIA requests and releasing the results on its website. Plaintiff sought disclosure of agency records by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that will shed light on the degree to which (if at all) any federal agencies were consulted prior and subsequent to the implementation of President Trump's Jan. 27 Executive Order 13769, which restricted travel to the U.S. by nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries. The complaint alleged that on Feb. 15, 2017, plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to OMB seeking copies of records that memorialized the following: 1. Whether any federal agency personnel reviewed the EO before it was issued, including whether DOJ reviewed it for lawfulness or deemed it lawful or unlawful; 2. Whether the EO was transmitted to any federal agency for review, comment, or awareness, including but not limited to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or DOJ; 3. Whether there was a decision to seek or not seek input from federal agency personnel on the creation or implementation of the EO, including but not limited to DHS or DOJ; 4. Whether there was any process for obtaining agency input regarding the EO. The complaint further alleged that, to date, plaintiff had not received a substantive response from OMB. Plaintiff sought a disclosure order under FOIA and sought legal fees. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and was assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. That same day, plaintiff filed another, similar, FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Justice, described here. On June 9, OMB filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the two cases; Judge Mehta granted the motion on June 12. The cases have now been consolidated and continue on this page. OMB and DOJ both answered plaintiff's complaint on June 21. The parties filed a joint status report on July 10. Judge Mehta set the next status report to be due on Aug. 8, and every month subsequent until a further Court order. On Aug. 8, the parties filed the next joint status report. OMB anticipated releasing the requested records in September, and DOJ would provide a progress update in a subsequent status report. In the subsequent status report, on Sept. 12, OMB anticipated completing its records search by Sept. 22. DOJ reported that it had located and released only one responsive record so far, and would release more documents on a rolling schedule beginning in October. This case was reassigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly on Sept. 19. In the parties' Oct. 10 joint status report, DOJ reported that it had found approximately 5,500 records responsive either to plaintiff's FOIA request or to the FOIA requests submitted by others seeking records related to the same general subject matter. DOJ anticipated beginning rolling releases of this material within the month of October. In the next status report of Nov. 14, OMB reported that it had completed its processing. DOJ reported that it had produced some documents in October and would continue to do so on a rolling basis. In the Dec. 12, 2017 status report, DOJ added that it had produced more documents in November and would continue to produce documents approximately monthly. All subsequent status reports have stated the same. Monthly status reports continued for the next 1.5 years except the month of January and February of 2019, for which an unopposed motion to stay due to the lapse of appropriations was granted. In the latest status report on April 9, 2019, the defendant indicated that they have continued to make monthly productions. The documents released by the government are available through this case page, below. On May 7, 2019 the parties filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearings its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Summary: On May 2, 2017, the Protect Democracy Project sued OMB under FOIA to compel disclosure of records about federal agencies consulted prior and subsequent to the implementation of President Trump's Jan. 27 travel ban Executive Order 13769. After consolidation with another suit against DOJ. The parties agreed to a rolling production with monthly status reports. On May 7, 2019 the parties filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice.


On October 5, 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLUF) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of an American citizen being detained by the United States military in Iraq. The plaintiff sued the Secretary of Defense under the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. §2241, the Non-Detention Act of 1971, and 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a). The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, claiming violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Defense Department had detained the plaintiff since on or around September 14, 2017, after Syrian forces transferred him to U.S. Custody. The Defense Department asserted it was detaining the plaintiff because he was allegedly fighting for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ("ISIS") in Syria. The ACLUF claimed that the Defense Department held the plaintiff "without charge, without access to a court or other meaningful opportunity to challenge his detention before a neutral decisionmaker, and without access to counsel." The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on October 30, 2017. They alleged that the ACLUF lacked standing to seek habeas corpus relief on the plaintiff's behalf and that the circumstances did not warrant the ACLUF's immediate access to the plaintiff. On December 23, 2017, District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan denied the motion. 286 F. Supp. 3d 53. She ordered the Defense Department to allow the ACLUF immediate and unmonitored access to the plaintiff for the purpose of determining whether the plaintiff wished for the ACLUF to continue this action on his behalf. She also ordered the Defense Department to refrain from transferring the plaintiff until the ACLUF informed the court of the plaintiff's wishes regarding his representation in this action. The plaintiff presumably requested that the ACLUF continue the action on his behalf. The plaintiff moved for the court to prevent the Defense Department from transferring him to another country while his case was pending. Judge Chutkan granted in part and denied in part this motion on January 23, 2018. She held that the court would not enjoin the Defense Department from transferring the plaintiff but would require it to provide the court and the plaintiff's counsel with seventy-two hours' notice prior to any transfer. 288 F. Supp. 3d 195. The defendants appealed this judgment on February 2, 2018. On April 18, 2018, the plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Defense Department from transferring the plaintiff from U.S. custody into the custody of another country. Judge Chutkan granted this motion on April 19, 2018. The defendants appealed this judgment on April 20, 2018. The defendants' two appeals were consolidated. On May 7, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sustained both of the district court's orders. The opinion for the court was filed by Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, with whom Circuit Judge Robert L. Wilkins joins. A dissenting opinion was filed by Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson. 889 F.3d 745. On June 22, 2018, the plaintiff filed a sealed motion for a preliminary injunction and the party underwent settlement discussions. On October 28, 2018, the Defense Department released the plaintiff and the parties agreed to dismiss this case with prejudice. On November 7, 2018, the court dismissed this case with prejudice and order each party to bear its own costs and fees. The plaintiff then filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to destroy documents and the court granted this order on February 28, 2019. In addition, the court ordered that the plaintiff must file any motion to challenge continued designation of materials by April 8, 2019. On April 8, 2019, the plaintiff moved to unseal documents relating to the government’s proposed forcible transfer of the plaintiff into Syria, namely. The next day, the New York Times sought to intervene and filed a motion to unseal in the D. C. Circuit. In the district court, however, the plaintiff indicated that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the motion to unseal, in its motion to hold in abeyance the briefing deadline on June 8, and the court stayed the motion to unseal. On June 28, 2019, the D.C. Circuit granted the motion to intervene by the New York Times, withdrew the motion to unseal filed on April 9, and reissued an unredacted version of the appellate court opinion barring transfer. 928 F.3d 1.

Summary: In 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of an American citizen being detained by the United States military in Iraq. The plaintiff sued the Secretary of Defense under the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. §2241, the Non-Detention Act of 1971, and 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) for injunctive relief, claiming violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Defense Department had detained the plaintiff since on or around September 14, 2017, after Syrian forces transferred him to U.S. Custody. On October 28, 2018, the Defense Department released the plaintiff and the case was dismissed with prejudice. On November 7, 2018, the court dismissed this case with prejudice and order each party to bear its own costs and fees. In April 2019, the plaintiff sought to unseal the documents relating to the government’s proposed forcible transfer of the plaintiff into Syria. The court reissued an unredacted version of the opinion on June 28, 2019.


This case is related to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse's coverage of the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants. For more information on litigation to disclose the warrants that inspired this case, please see this link. For a summary of the warrants and information on ongoing efforts by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to protect the confidential information in them, see this link.
The FISA requires the government to obtain a warrant from the FISC before it may conduct any domestic electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information. The warrant applications are made ex parte and must include a sworn statement by a federal officer of the facts and circumstances relied upon to justify the government's belief that the target of surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Once a FISC judge receives a warrant application, the judge can order approval of the surveillance only if the judge finds that there is probable cause to believe that the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Because the orders only authorize surveillance up to 90 days, the government must file an application for an extension that meets the same requirements as the initial warrant application and obtain a renewal order from the FISC for continued surveillance. For the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse collection of FISA matters, see our special collection. On November 27, 2020, an informal foreign policy advisor to the Trump 2016 presidential campaign, represented by private counsel, filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He sued the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States, and former DOJ officials that sought the warrant against him in their individual capacities. He alleged violations of his right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures due to improperly filed FISA warrants against him. He sought $75 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief to amend government records about him, and attorneys' fees for both this case and a previous, failed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request related to the suit. Page filed this case under FISA (50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1812) for each FISA warrant and renewal sought against him, Bivens, the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 2674), and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). The plaintiff added that, at the time of filing, he had an active administrative claim under the Patriot Act pending before the DOJ, and if this claim was unsuccessful, he would add that to this complaint. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the government did not have probable cause to obtain a FISA warrant against him, because the information upon which the warrant was based came from one unreliable confidential source. He argued that the FBI and all of the agents involved in procuring this warrant were aware, either in an investigative or supervisory capacity, of the deficiencies in the source's testimony and did not follow up with relevant sub-sources to confirm the source's allegations. The plaintiff stated that the defendants still sought the warrants anyway, even after interviews with the plaintiff in connection to the warrant failed to establish probable cause that he was acting on behalf of a foreign power to sabotage the United States, the key preliminary findings needed to grant a FISA warrant. He added that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and subsequent FBI investigations found that the FISA warrant against Page and each of its renewals were unlawfully obtained. The case was assigned to Judge Kentaji Brown Jackson on November 30, 2020. It is ongoing as of December 16, 2020.

Summary: On November 27, 2020, an informal foreign policy advisor to the Trump 2016 presidential campaign filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and various former DOJ and FBI officials that sought the warrant against him in their personal capacity violated his right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures in connection with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants issued against him during the 2016 campaign. He sought $75 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees for this case and a related Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case used to gain information for this litigation under FISA, <i>Bivens</i>, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Privacy Act. The case is ongoing.


On September 5, 2012, an individual U.S. citizen residing in Illinois, the American Friends Service Committee, and the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination League filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the U.S. Department of Treasury. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest and private counsel, asked the court for a declaration that the defendants' designation of the individual plaintiff as a "specially designated terrorist" was unlawful and an injunction against its continued application, claiming that the defendants' decision to use such a designation violated the Constitution and federal statutes. Specifically, the individual plaintiff claimed that the defendants' decision on July 24, 1995, to designate him as a "specially designated terrorist" was without any due process or probable cause of criminal wrongdoing, and under restrictions so severe that they prevent him carrying out basic life activities. The two organizational plaintiffs claimed that the designation violated their First Amendment rights because it prevented them from meaningfully advocating in coordination with the individual plaintiff against the unfairness of that designation. On November 5, 2012, the federal government removed the individual Plaintiff's name from the Specially Designated Terrorist List. The defendants' did not answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiffs' complaint. On November 16, 2012, the plaintiffs' voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit without prejudice.

Summary: On September 5, 2012, an individual U.S. citizen residing in Illinois and two organizations that sought to advocate for that individual filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the U.S. Department of Treasury, seeking a declaration that the Defendants' designation of the individual plaintiff as a "specially designated terrorist" was unlawful and an injunction against its continued application. The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after the federal government removed the individual Plaintiff's name from the Specially Designated Terror List.


On September 15, 2012, the government initiated criminal prosecution of the defendant in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon after arresting the defendant the day before. The government charged the defendant with attempting to damage and destroy a building by means of explosion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332a(a)(2)(D) and 844(i). The defendant allegedly attempted to bomb a bar in Chicago with a fake bomb provided by an FBI sting. In August 2013, the government added the charge of soliciting a crime of violence, murder for hire, and witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 373(a), 1958(a), and 1512(a)(1)(A), respectively. The defendant allegedly attempted to solicit someone to murder the undercover agent with whom he had dealt. This case is in this Clearinghouse because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh District addressed the tension between the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the evidentiary investigation required by the test laid out in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), for determining the legality of a warrant. The Franks test allows a defendant to challenge a search warrant on the ground that it was procured by a knowing or reckless falsehood by the officer who applied for the warrant. More details on the underlying criminal litigation are provided at the end. The government notified the defendant, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(c) and 1825(d)-sections of FISA, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.-that it intended to present evidence at his trial derived from electronic surveillance that had been conducted under the authority of the Act. The defendant responded through counsel with a motion seeking access to the classified materials submitted in support of the government's FISA warrant applications in order to determine the legality of the warrant to obtain access to the defendant's communications. The defense counsel sought to show that the evidence obtained or derived from the electronic surveillance was based on information that was unlawfully acquired or that the surveillance was not made in conformity with an order of authorization or approval, both being grounds for suppression. The defense counsel argued that it would be too difficult to conduct a Franks hearing without the classified materials that the government relied on in obtaining the warrant. Anticipating this difficulty, the drafters of FISA devised a solution: the judge makes the additional determination, based on full access to all classified materials and the defense's proffer of its version of events, of whether it's possible to determine the validity of the Franks challenge without disclosure of any of the classified materials to the defense. In response to the defendant's motion, the government filed a heavily redacted, unclassified response, accessible to the defendant and his lawyers, and a classified version, accessible only to the district court, accompanied by an unclassified statement by the Attorney General that disclosure of the classified material, or an adversarial hearing with respect to it, "would harm the national security of the United States." The harm was detailed in a classified affidavit signed by the FBI's Acting Assistant Director for Counterterrorism. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the district court studied the classified materials to determine whether they should be shown to the defendant's lawyers, who had the necessary level of security clearances. On January 29, 2014, Judge Coleman ordered the materials to be turned over to the defense counsel. Judge Coleman acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the disclosure of FISA materials to a defense counsel, but held that "the adversarial process is integral to safeguarding the rights of all citizens," and that "the supposed national security interest at stake is not implicated where defense counsel has the necessary security clearances," Judge Coleman ruled that "the probable value of disclosure and the risk of nondisclosure outweighed the potential danger of disclosure to cleared counsel." United States v. Daoud, 2014 WL 321384 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2014). The order, though interlocutory, was appealable immediately, and the government appealed. On June 16, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh District reversed the district court's order. Judge Richard Posner, writing for the court, held that Judge Coleman had failed to to conduct a proper ex parte in camera review to determine whether the defense counsel was entitled to the FISA material. Judge Ilana Rovner filed a concurring opinion. In addressing the Franks issue, Judge Posner wrote, "Thirty-six years after the enactment of FISA, it is well past time to recognize that it is virtually impossible for a FISA defendant to make the showing that Franks requires in order to convene an evidentiary hearing, and that a court cannot conduct more than a limited Franks review on its own. Possibly there is no realistic means of reconciling Franks with the FISA process. But all three branches of government have an obligation to explore that question thoroughly before we rest with that conclusion." United States v. Daoud, 2014 WL 2696734 (7th Cir. June 16, 2014). The defendant's attorneys appealed the Seventh Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court; he filed a petition for writ of certiorari on February 4, 2015. The Supreme Court denied the petition on February 23. Judge Coleman ruled on outstanding FISA-related motions on March 19, 2015. She declined to grant the defendant's motion to reopen investigation into the FISA warrant against him because of reports of abuse of the FISA system, saying that the incidents he flagged did not have anything to do with this case and that Executive Order 12333 that gives the Executive Branch surveillance capabilities is sufficiently broad to not warrant further investigation into the matter. She also denied the defendant's motion for a new Franks hearing, saying that, despite the defendant's assertions to the contrary, the Seventh Circuit settled the issue. Finally, she also denied a motion to disclose the identity of the FBI officer involved in his investigation, saying that the records already disclosed by the FBI gave the defense team enough information to conduct a meaningful cross. The defendant filed a motion on September 28, 2018 asking for clarity on Judge Coleman's January 29, 2014 opinion on FISA disclosures to defense attorneys. He noted that his motion that prompted the opinion asked for a ruling on the constitutionality of FISA, but Judge Coleman had not made an explicit ruling on the issue. Judge Coleman did not rule on the motion before the defendant pleaded guilty in the criminal trial. Here are additional details on the criminal case: The first indictment arose out of an investigation that began in May 2012 when the defendant, an 18-year-old American citizen and resident of Hillside, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, joined an email conversation with two undercover FBI employees posing as terrorists who had responded to messages that he had posted online. The ensuing investigation, based in part on a series of surveillance warrants, yielded evidence that the defendant planned "violent jihad"-terrorist attacks in the name of Islam-and had discussed his plans with "trusted brothers." He expressed interest in committing such attacks in the United States, utilizing bombmaking instructions that he had read both in Inspire magazine, an organ of Al Qaeda that is published in English, and through internet searches. One of his FBI correspondents put him in touch with an undercover agent (a "cousin") whom the correspondent represented to be a fellow terrorist. After meeting six times with the "cousin," the defendant selected a bar in downtown Chicago to be the target of a bomb that the agent would supply him with. The agent told him the bomb would destroy the building containing the bar, and warned him that it would kill "hundreds" of people. The defendant replied: "that's the point." On September 14, 2012, the defendant parked a Jeep containing the bomb in front of the bar. In a nearby alley, in the presence of the agent, he tried to detonate the bomb. Nothing happened, of course, because the bomb was a fake. The defendant was immediately arrested. It was while in jail a month later that, according to the second indictment, he tried to solicit someone to murder the undercover agent with whom he had dealt. The criminal trial went through an extremely long discovery process. The defendant underwent an extensive investigation into his capacity to stand trial starting in 2015, which took place under the guidance of Judge Samuel Der-Yehigian, a Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois who was overseeing a similar competency evaluation in another case. The court ultimately decided that the defendant was competent to stand trial on March 12, 2018. The defendant plead guilty to the crime, and judgment was entered on May 20, 2019. He appealed the decision on June 19, 2019 (Seventh Circuit, docket 19-2186). The Seventh Circuit has not issued a ruling on the appeal.

Summary: In 2012, the government initiated criminal prosecution of Adel Daoud in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The government charged Daoud with attempting to damage and destroy a building by means of explosion. In 2013, the government added the charge of soliciting a crime of violence, murder for hire, and witness tampering. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed the tension between the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the evidentiary investigation required by the test laid out in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), for determining the legality of a warrant. The Seventh Circuit reversed the order on June 16, 2014; the defendant appealed the decision to the Supreme Court but cert was denied on February 23, 2015. The underlying criminal case continues.


On October 17, 2013, the ACLU filed this lawsuit against the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) (FOIA). The suit requested an injunction requiring the DOJ to disclose records regarding DOJ's policy on giving notice to criminal defendants against whom it intends to use evidence obtained from warrantless surveillance, including information obtained under surveillance orders authorized by Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. After the suit commenced, the DOJ began processing parts of the ACLU's initial FOIA request. The DOJ found several responsive documents, but withheld them, citing FOIA's Exemption 5, which allows the government to decline to disclose "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). The ACLU responded by challenging the adequacy of the scope of the DOJ's search as well as the application of Exemption 5 to the documents in question. Both parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment. On March 3, 2015, the District Court (Judge Gregory H. Woods) ruled on the motions for summary judgment, holding that the ACLU's motion was granted with respect to the scope of DOJ's search, and that the DOJ's motion was granted with respect to the applicability of Exemption 5 to the documents that had already been found. The court ordered the DOJ to conduct a new search for documents including "legal memoranda or opinions addressing or interpreting the [FISA Amendment Act's] notice provisions or requirements, as set forth in 50 U.S.C. § 1181e(a) and § 1806(c)." The order required the DOJ to search for any relevant documents without limiting the search to "governing" documents, and to release any responsive documents that didn't fall under a FOIA exemption. Because the granted motions for summary judgment disposed of all issues in the case, the court also ordered the case closed. On March 5, 2015, the court issued an order reopening the case in order to allow the parties to litigate the issue regarding the search for responsive documents in United States Attorney's Offices that hadn't previously been searched. On November 23, 2015, the DOJ filed a motion for summary judgement on the adequacy of their second search, and claiming that the additional documents found were also entitled to FOIA's Exemption 5 protection. On December 23, 2015 the ACLU filed a cross-motion for summary judgement, challenging the DOJ's motion. On September 27, 2016 the District Court (Judge Gregory H. Woods) ruled on the motions for summary judgment, holding that the DOJ's motion was granted on the adequacy of their search and that the DOJ's motion was granted in regards to the additional documents, with the exception of one document. The ACLU's motion was denied in part and granted in reference to one of the documents, with the court finding that the DOJ did not provide sufficient information detailing why that document was due protection. The court directed the DOJ to submit revised submissions addressing the document in question and directed them to file a renewed motion for partial summary judgement no later than November 14, 2016. On May 2, 2017, the Court granted DOJ's renewed motion for summary judgment. The Court found that the remaining documents at issue were appropriately withheld under FOIA's Exemption 5 and that the documents at issue did not contain reasonably segregable non-exempt information that required disclosure. The court then terminated all pending motions and closed the case.

Summary: On October 17, 2013, the ACLU filed a lawsuit requesting an injunction forcing the DOJ to comply with a FOIA request regarding their policy on giving notice to criminal defendants against whom it intends to use evidence obtained from warrantless surveillance, including information obtained under surveillance orders authorized by the FISA Amendments Act § 702. On March 3, 2105, the court granted part of each party's motion for summary judgment, and issued an order requiring the DOJ to conduct a further search for responsive documents, and disclose any that were not subject to FOIA exemptions. On September 27, 2016, the court granted part of each party's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the DOJ's searches were adequate, and that all but one of the documents found by the DOJ were protected by FOIA's Exemption 5. On May 2, 2017, the Court granted DOJ's renewed motion for summary judgment, finding that the remaining documents were properly withheld under FOIA Exemption 5.


On November 11, 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union and its Foundation filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking the processing and release of agency records from the National Security Agency (NSA), Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to respond to the plaintiffs’ FOIA Request submitted on September 14, 2016, which sought records containing information on the government’s warrantless surveillance programs operated under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring the defendants to process the request immediately and an order enjoining the defendants from assessing fees for this processing. The plaintiffs also requested attorneys’ fees. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that because Congress was considering whether to reauthorize Section 702 when it expired in 2017, the timely disclosure of these records was critical to the public debate about the authority’s lawfulness. Therefore, the plaintiff sought information about the breadth of Section 702 surveillance and its policies and procedures, including the number of communications involving Americans that were subject to surveillance and rules setting the bounds of the surveillance. The plaintiffs specifically requested each individual agency’s current targeting procedures and minimization procedures addressing Section 702 surveillance and its use to investigate or prosecute individual Americans. On January 13, 2017, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint admitting that they had not completed review of the plaintiffs' request but denying that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief. The defendants asserted that they had exercised due diligence in processing the request and that exceptional circumstances necessitated additional time to process it. Alternatively, the defendants argued that the information requested was exempt in whole or in part under FOIA, and that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the request for relief exceeding FOIA's statutory relief. On February 8, 2017, Richard M. Berman ordered the defendants to search for, process, and release non-exempt documents and set required release dates. As of September 17, 2017, the defendants had completed their production of partially or fully non-exempt documents in response to the plaintiff’s FOIA request. The parties then began settlement negotiations that involved the plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. On December 11, 2017, Judge Berman dismissed this case with prejudice due to a settlement agreement. NSA agreed to pay the plaintiff $11,000; CIA $6,500; National Security Division $6,500; FBI $6,500; and ODNI $4,500. The settlement amount totaled $35,000. The court retained jurisdiction over any issues relating to this order, but the case is now closed.

Summary: On November 11, 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking the processing and release of agency records from the National Security Agency (NSA), Office off the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), US Department of Justice (DOJ), and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants wrongfully failed to respond to the plaintiffs’ FOIA Request submitted on September 14, 2016, seeking records containing information on the government’s warrantless surveillance programs operated under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As of September 17, 2017, the defendants have completed their production of partially or fully non-exempt documents in response to the plaintiff’s FOIA request. On December 11, 2017, Judge Richard M. Berman dismissed this case with prejudice due to a settlement agreement. NSA shall pay to the plaintiff $11,000, CIA shall pay $6,500, National Security Division shall pay $6,500, FBI shall pay $6,500, and ODNI shall pay $4,500. The settlement amount totaled $35,000. The court may retain jurisdiction over any issues that may arise relating to this order.


On September 7, 2016, the New York Times and one of its reporters specializing in national security issues filed a complaint under 5 U.S.C. § 552 (the Freedom of Information Act) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The complaint alleged that the reporter properly filed Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests with the DOJ for three documents related to counterterrorism issues, that the DOJ had not provided the requested documents in a timely manner, and that the Court should compel the DOJ to release the records at issue. Judge Lewis Kaplan presided over the case. The documents that the reporter sought and the status of the requests at the time of complaint are below:

the reporter initially submitted a FOIA request for the final reports by the Special Interagency Task Force on Detainee Disposition established by Executive Order 13,493 and the Special Interagency Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies established by Executive Order 13,491 to the DOJ on October 28, 2015.

the reporter initially submitted a FOIA request for a May 4, 2005 memo on discovery issues presented by the Stellarwind warrantless wiretapping and bulk data collection program on January 7, 2016.

the reporter initially submitted an identical FOIA request to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the DOJ for unreleased documents from Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) Judge John Bates' redacted docket that yielded publicized opinions on October 3 and November 3 of 2011 on May 10, 2016 (the original case is available in this Clearinghouse). These requests sought information on the widely-cited statistics on the National Security Agency's (NSA) upstream internet surveillance program, and the 2008 version of the FBI's standard minimization procedures for data collection.

The government filed a response acknowledging receipt of the brief and the various FOIA requests, but alleged that the government was cooperating in the FOIA records request and no legal action was necessary on October 11, 2016. Outside of the court, the parties agreed to a document release schedule, and submitted a schedule for document release on March 1, 2017. The schedule was not publicized, though the docket shows that release dates for a few of the documents were slightly altered over the course of the year. On October 11, 2017, the plaintiffs submitted a status report to the court showing that the parties cooperated in releasing the requested documents. Judge Kaplan dismissed the case on October 26, 2017; it is now closed. The released documents provided important context to frequently cited surveillance and interrogation information, while leaving other important questions unanswered. A brief summary of the collected documents is available below:

For the Special Interagency Task Force on Interrogation reports, the reporter found examples of three new areas of information not previously publicized. The first noted that Obama-era officials asked the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) if it wanted to use anything other than the Army Field Manual detention policies, and the CIA did not suggest an alternative. Second, it added that the CIA maintained a policy of transferring detainees to countries where they might be abused on a case-by-case basis. Third, it noted that the CIA maintained policies allowing for prisoner separation in detention centers, which previously had been used to authorize torture techniques like sleep deprivation.

For the Stellarwind bulk collection discovery memo, the unredacted sections of the documents did not provide a clear policy for when the Justice Department needs to turn over classified information to a defendant in a terrorism case, in line with Brady prosecutorial standards. However, the memo did note that this is an issue that the DOJ needs to grapple with in the future.

For the 2008 FBI Standard Minimization Procedures, the reporter found that it allowed the FBI to search for evidence of an ordinary crime in the warrantless surveillance repository.

Finally, the 2011 FISC documents confirmed that Judge Bates' frequently cited statistic that nine percent of all internet communications picked up by the NSA came through the upstream surveillance program, which pulled its information from internet switchboards rather than email accounts, may be misleading. The released documents showed that the NSA referred to "communication" and "transaction" interchangeably, and that one transaction can contain multiple internet communications, like emails. As a result, the nine percent provided by Judge Bates could be a larger or smaller percentage depending on how many bits of internet communication were picked up in each "transaction." The released documents demonstrated that some of these upstream communications contained information from purely domestic servers, though it was a small percentage.

Summary: On September 7, 2016, the <i>New York Times</i> and one of its reporters focusing on national security issues filed this lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act for documents on forced interrogation policy, statistics on the National Security Agency's (NSA) upstream internet surveillance program, and on issues related to discovery in classified terrorism cases. The parties amicably agreed to a document release schedule, and the case closed on October 26, 2017. Of interest in the released documents is the revelation that the government may have been collecting different percentages of communications through upstream surveillance than previously believed.


On February 5, 2014, two activists filed this lawsuit pro se in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs sued the National Security Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice under Bivens. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment Rights and requested declaratory relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants subjected the plaintiffs to a mass surveillance program which directed Verizon to collect telephone records for over one million Americans which, according to the complaint, was revealed by The Guardian in an article published on June 6, 2013. This case is part of a series of lawsuits filed against the NSA for its "Bulk Telephony Metadata Program," which was authorized under Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"). (These cases can be found as a part of a  special collection on the Clearinghouse.) On January 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and the plaintiffs failed to state claims on which relief may be granted. The plaintiffs responded that they did have valid Constitutional claims, and noted that in other cases--specifically, ACLU v. Clapper (NS-NY-0003), Klayman v. Obama (NS-DC-0007), and Smith v. Obama (NS-ID-0001)--courts had found that similar plaintiffs did have standing. On August 6, 2015, Judge Kathleen Cardone issued an order staying this case for six months and denying the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Judge Cardone noted that the plaintiffs' case was based on ongoing court proceedings in the aforementioned Klayman, Smith, and ACLU cases, and as such the plaintiffs were also waiting on the outcomes of these cases to determine how to proceed in this action. Judge Cardone allowed the plaintiffs to move to reopen this case in six months. This case was administratively closed. The case was not reopened within the allotted six months, and there have been no updates to the docket since August 2015.

Summary: In 2014, two activists filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against the National Security Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging violations of the plaintiffs' First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment Rights and requesting declaratory relief. On August 6, 2015, the District Court issued an order staying this case for six months since the plaintiffs' case was based largely on pending litigation in other courts. This case is administratively closed.


This 2017 lawsuit challenged the FBI’s placement of a U.S. citizen on a terrorist watchlist; it was dismissed in 2019. The Terrorism Screening DataBase, also known as the “terrorist watchlist,” is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), a division of the National Security Branch of the FBI. The watchlist includes sub-lists--a No Fly List and a Selectee List. People on the No Fly List are not allowed to fly on American airplanes or flights into the US. People included on the Selectee List are subject to additional screening by federal government officials at airports and land border crossings into the US. At airports, individuals on the Selectee List often have their boarding passes stamped with “SSSS” by airline agents. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that he was subjected to extra security procedures at airports as early as 2014, perhaps because he was a cleric at his mosque (in Salt Lake City). The events more directly leading up to this litigation commenced in June 2017 when the plaintiff was denied boarding to a commercial flight bound for the U.S. by airport officials in Nairobi, Kenya. Though he was eventually allowed to board a flight the following day, he missed his connecting flight in Los Angeles because of a long screening process. The plaintiff flew domestically on three other instances in 2017 and each time the ticketing agent called the TSC and marked his boarding pass with the “SSSS” stamp. He filed this lawsuit on June 17, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleging constitutional violations. In a final amended complaint filed November 2017, the plaintiff sued the Directors of the FBI and TSC, the Administrator of the TSA, and the Commissioner of the National Counterterrorism Center, all in their official capacities. Represented by attorneys from the Council on American Islamic Relations and private counsel, the lawsuit sought injunctive and declaratory relief based on four main claims. First, the plaintiff argued that his placement on the Selectee List violated his Fifth Amendment rights to procedural and substantive due process. Second, he asserted that his inclusion on the selectee list was an unlawful agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§702, 706). Third, he argued that his inclusion on the watchlist violated his Fifth Amendment Right to equal protection. Fourth, he urged that the Executive branch’s implementation of the terrorist watchlist amounted to a violation of the Constitution’s non-delegation doctrine. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction. In an order dated April 20, 2018, District Judge Dee Benson rejected the government’s jurisdictional arguments but granted its motion for failure to state a claim. For the procedural due process claim, Judge Benson found that the right to travel in a convenient or unimpeded fashion has not been recognized by the Supreme Court as a liberty interest protected by the Fifth Amendment and that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege reputational damage that satisfies a “stigma plus” standard. Judge Benson found the substantive due process claim unconvincing for similar reasons, writing that the plaintiff failed to provide case law supporting his contention that “freedom of movement” is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Likewise, because a constitutionally protected interest had not been identified by the plaintiff, the District Judge held that the APA claim similarly failed. For the equal protection claim, Judge Benson found that the plaintiff did not produce evidence of intentional discrimination against Muslims and refused to allow the claim to proceed on a disparate impact theory alone. Lastly, the non-delegation claim was dismissed because the Judge found that Congress charged the TSA with “overall responsibility for airline security” and that this is general policy establishes an “intelligible principle” that does not violate the doctrine of non-delegation. 2018 WL 1940411. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all claims in an opinion by Circuit Judge David Ebel. 942 F. 3d 1019 (Nov. 12, 2019).

Summary: In 2017, an American Citizen who is a cleric at a mosque in Salt Lake City filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The plaintiff alleged that his placement on the FBI’s “terrorist watchlist” violated his Fifth Amendment Rights, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Constitution’s non-delegation doctrine. In 2018, the District Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in 2019.


On Apr. 12, 2017, the ACLUs of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware filed this lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This was one of over a dozen such suits; each aimed to shed light on how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented President Trump's Jan. 27 and Mar. 6 Executive Orders that ban admission to the U.S. of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Specifically, plaintiffs sought information "concerning CBP’s local implementation of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order...as well as any other judicial order or executive directive issued regarding Executive Order No. 1, including President Trump’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order." The request concerned implementation at international airports within the purview of CBP's Baltimore Field Office, including Washington Dulles International Airport, Baltimore Washington International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, Pittsburgh International Airport ("Local International Airports"), and Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Port of Washington-Dulles and Wilmington ("Port of Entry Offices"). The request also concerned the number of individuals who were detained or subjected to secondary screening, extended questioning, enforcement examination, or consideration for a waiver at the aforementioned airports pursuant to the Executive Orders. In the complaint, plaintiffs argued that the requested records "would facilitate the public’s understanding of how Defendants implemented and enforced the Executive Orders here in the San Francisco Field Office" and that "[s]uch information is critical to the public’s ability to hold the government accountable." On May 9, the government filed a motion to treat all of these FOIA cases as "multi-district litigation," effectively seeking to consolidate them before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. For the transfer motion see this case. On June 26, Judge Brinkema stayed all proceedings pending the decision on the motion to transfer. On Aug. 25, the parties filed a consent motion to reopen the case, given that the government's MDL motion to transfer was denied on Aug. 2. 261 F. Supp. 3d 1348. The Court granted this consent motion on the same day. On Jan. 11, Judge Brinkema ordered as follows: - CBP must process 200 pages of potentially responsive emails in its Baltimore office by Feb. 28, and 400 pages by Apr. 30; - CBP must produce responsive, non-exempt records to plaintiffs by Apr. 30; - CBP must make rolling productions every two months after that, achieving 95% production by Aug. 31; - CBP must complete production by Dec. 31. The parties will file joint status reports every two months. Any hearing is postponed until after the parties file their final joint status report. The latest status report, of Mar. 15, 2018, noted that defendants had completed processing over 900 pages. May through November status reports indicated the defendants were continuing to process and produce responsive records. The parties continued to cooperate over the next year, largely sticking to the schedule and producing documents on the agreed upon time frame. On June 5, 2019, the parties submitted a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which was granted that same day. The documents released by the government in all the ACLU cases are available through this case page. This case is closed.

Summary: On Apr. 12, 2017, the ACLUs of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware sued DHS under FOIA, for information on the implementation of the travel ban Executive Orders at regional airports. Defendants were unable to consolidate all nationwide ACLU cases in multidistrict litigation, and this case is proceeding here.


On October 13, 2015 two men and the estate of a third man, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The plaintiffs sued two psychologists who “designed, implemented, and personally administered an experimental torture program” for the CIA under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) (28 U.S.C. § 1350) for human rights violations. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and private counsel, sought monetary relief for "physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering." The plaintiffs claimed that torture, non-consensual human experimentation, and war crimes had been committed against them during detention by the United States. On January 8, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that “1) the court lacked jurisdiction due to the Political Question Doctrine; 2) Defendants were entitled to derivative sovereign immunity; 3) the ATS did not confer jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims; and 4) Plaintiff Obaid Ullah lacked the capacity to sue.” 183 F. Supp. 3d 1121. A motion hearing was held on April 22, 2016 and the motion was denied on April 28, 2016. In doing so the court took “the well pleaded factual allegations as true” and found that none of the contested grounds required the court to dismiss the case. Id. Following discovery litigation, the defendants filed another motion to dismiss on November 18, 2016, claiming that “the Military Commissions Act (‘MCA’)...deprives this court of jurisdiction over 'non-habeas detention-related claims' brought by an alien when the alien was determined to have been properly detained by the United States as an ‘enemy combatant.”' A motion hearing was held on January 19, 2017 and Senior Judge Justin Quackenbush denied the motion to dismiss on January 27, 2017. The motion was denied on the grounds that the defendants had not demonstrated “an agency relationship with the Government” and “[n]one of the three Plaintiffs was determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to be an ‘enemy combatant.’” 2017 WL 390270. On May 22, 2017, both parties moved for summary judgment. A hearing on these motions occurred on July 28, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the court denied both motions for summary judgment, finding that "neither side had demonstrated that judgment as a matter of law is appropriate." 268 F. Supp. 3d 1132. On August 17, 2017 the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the claim with prejudice, pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement between the parties. The court entered judgment that same day to dismiss the case, which is now closed.

Summary: In 2015, two foreign nationals and the estate of a third foreign national filed this suit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants committed human rights abuses against them, including torture, non-consensual human experimentation, and war crimes, during their detention by the United States. The parties settled via a confidential settlement agreement.


On April 12, 2016, two Cuban-born Americans filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Carnival Corporation and Fathom Travel Corporation. The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. §2000. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants did not allow Cuban-born persons to board its cruise line to Cuba. The lawsuit alleges that this policy violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing service based on national origin. The plaintiffs requested a jury trial for all issues and demanded the court enjoin the defendant’s conduct. The case was assigned to Judge Marcia Cooke. On April 28, 2016, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after Carnival changed its discriminatory policies and began taking reservations from Cuban-born Americans on trips to Cuba. Cuba also changed its law to allow Cuban-Americans to arrive by ship. This case is closed.

Summary: A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Carnival Corporation after two Cuban-born Americans were denied a ticket to Cuba. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case after Carnival changed its discriminatory policy.