## Facts

- Fourteen “high-value” suspected terrorist leaders were transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay and received Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) hearings.
- The Department of Defense released redacted CSRT transcripts and some related records.
- The American Civil Liberties Union requested, under FOIA, complete unredacted CSRT transcripts and all records and reports relied on by the CSRTs.
- The government produced additional records but withheld or heavily redacted information describing detainee capture, interrogation methods and confinement conditions, and related operational details.
- The government invoked FOIA Exemption 1 (properly classified national security information) and Exemption 3 (information protected from disclosure by statute, including protection of intelligence sources and methods).
- The government relied chiefly on declarations from an agency information-review officer describing how disclosure could harm national security, including by revealing intelligence capabilities, enabling adversary countermeasures, and harming foreign relations.

## Issues

1. Whether the withheld capture, detention, and interrogation information was properly classified and exempt under FOIA Exemption 1.
2. Whether the same information was independently exempt under FOIA Exemption 3 because disclosure would reveal intelligence sources and methods protected by statute.
3. Whether the existence of related publicly available information required disclosure under an official-acknowledgment theory.
4. Whether later statutory or executive restrictions on interrogation methods removed Exemption 1 or Exemption 3 protection for information describing those methods.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the Department of Defense.
- The court held the government properly withheld the disputed information under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3.
- The court concluded the government’s declarations provided a logical and plausible showing of expected national security harm from disclosure.
- The court rejected the claim that public discussion or earlier releases compelled disclosure absent an official, specific matching disclosure of the exact information.
- The court rejected the claim that subsequent prohibitions on interrogation methods eliminated FOIA protection for information describing those methods.
- The court held the record supported resolution on summary judgment because there was no sufficient showing of bad faith or contradiction requiring further judicial scrutiny.

## Legal Principles

- In FOIA cases involving national security, courts give substantial weight to agency declarations supporting classification and explaining expected harm, if the explanations are logical and plausible and not undermined by evidence of bad faith.
- FOIA Exemption 3 applies when a qualifying statute protects intelligence sources and methods; information may qualify when operational details, taken together, would reveal intelligence activities, capabilities, or vulnerabilities.
- Under the official-acknowledgment doctrine, general public reporting or partial disclosures do not waive FOIA exemptions; waiver requires an official, specific, and exact prior disclosure of the same information.
- The legality or current authorization of intelligence or interrogation practices is distinct from whether information about them is classified or protected by statute; historical methods may remain exempt if disclosure would still risk national security harm.

## Conclusion

The court held that classified and statutorily protected operational details in CSRT-related detainee records could be withheld under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3, and that neither public discussion nor later restrictions on interrogation practices required disclosure absent an exact, official prior release of the same information.


Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011)