## Facts

- Public-interest organizations submitted FOIA requests to multiple federal agencies for records concerning detention, detainee treatment and deaths, and renditions connected to U.S. counterterrorism operations.
- After delays, the requesters filed a FOIA lawsuit; the court managed production through an expedited schedule and a requester-prepared “priority list” of records.
- The CIA issued a “Glomar” response for certain priority-list items, refusing to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed on the ground that acknowledgment would reveal classified information.
- The Department of Defense withheld photographs taken by U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib depicting detainee abuse, asserting privacy and safety risks if disclosed.
- The government primarily invoked FOIA Exemption 7(C) (privacy in law-enforcement records) and Exemption 7(F) (risk to life or physical safety), arguing disclosure could inflame hostility and provoke violence against U.S. troops and others.
- Requesters argued that privacy could be protected through redactions and that the public interest in accountability for detainee abuse warranted disclosure; an expert offered evidence disputing the government’s predictive harm claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the CIA could properly refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records under a Glomar response, including where public information and an Inspector General investigation indicated the records’ existence and subject matter.
2. Whether the Department of Defense could withhold Abu Ghraib detainee-abuse photographs under FOIA Exemption 7(C) despite the availability of redactions to protect identities.
3. Whether the Department of Defense could withhold those photographs under FOIA Exemption 7(F) based on asserted risks that publication would endanger individuals.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for partial summary judgment.
- The court upheld the CIA’s Glomar response for some categories where acknowledgment could itself reveal classified operational information.
- The court rejected the CIA’s Glomar response for certain other priority-list items where official acknowledgments and an Inspector General investigation made a categorical refusal improper; the CIA was required to process those items and justify any withholdings through specific FOIA exemptions.
- The court ordered the Department of Defense to release the Abu Ghraib photographs with redactions sufficient to protect the identities of individuals depicted.
- The court held Exemption 7(C) did not justify total withholding because privacy interests could be protected through redaction and the public interest in government accountability was substantial.
- The court held Exemption 7(F) was not satisfied on the record presented because the government’s predicted harms were too speculative and insufficiently supported.

## Legal Principles

- FOIA reflects a presumption of disclosure; exemptions are narrowly construed and the agency bears the burden to justify nondisclosure.
- FOIA requires disclosure of any reasonably segregable, non-exempt portions of records, including through redaction where feasible.
- A Glomar response may be appropriate where confirming or denying the existence of records would itself disclose classified information, but it is improper when official acknowledgments render the categorical refusal overbroad as to particular items.
- Under Exemption 7(C), privacy interests in law-enforcement records are balanced against the public interest in shedding light on governmental conduct; redaction may reduce privacy intrusions such that withholding is unwarranted.
- Under Exemption 7(F), the government must provide a concrete, evidentiary basis showing disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger life or physical safety; generalized or conclusory predictions are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court required disclosure under FOIA of Abu Ghraib abuse photographs with identifying information redacted, rejecting broad privacy and safety claims as a basis for complete withholding, and it limited the CIA’s use of Glomar by requiring document processing where the existence and subject matter of responsive records had been officially acknowledged.


Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep’t of Def., 389 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)