## Facts

- A national association of immigration attorneys submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice component overseeing immigration courts seeking all complaints against immigration judges and records reflecting resolutions of those complaints (2009–Nov. 2012).
- After delay, the agency produced about 16,000 pages but redacted every immigration judge’s name, substituting unique codes to allow cross-document tracking without identification.
- The agency also redacted additional material within documents it otherwise treated as responsive, labeling the excised portions “non-responsive.”
- For name redactions, the agency invoked FOIA Exemption 6, asserting that judges’ privacy interests in avoiding association with complaints categorically outweighed any public interest.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the agency, upholding categorical Exemption 6 name redactions and allowing “non-responsive” redactions within responsive records.

## Issues

1. Whether FOIA Exemption 6 permits categorical withholding of immigration judges’ names from complaint and resolution records without a more tailored privacy–public-interest analysis.
2. Whether an agency may redact information within a responsive record solely because the agency deems the redacted portions “non-responsive,” absent reliance on a FOIA exemption.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court rejected the agency’s across-the-board Exemption 6 approach, holding that the balance of privacy and public interests can vary by judge, complaint type, and outcome and therefore requires a particularized (or well-defined categorical) showing.
- The court held that FOIA does not authorize “non-responsive” redactions within a record deemed responsive; once a record is responsive, withholding of any portion must be justified under a statutory FOIA exemption.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings, including a more specific Exemption 6 justification and elimination of redactions premised solely on non-responsiveness.

## Legal Principles

- Under FOIA Exemption 6, agencies must weigh personal privacy against the public interest in disclosure; categorical name redactions are improper where privacy and public interests materially vary across situations.
- A sufficient Exemption 6 justification may require a particularized showing for individual employees or defined categories, rather than a blanket assertion.
- FOIA’s disclosure scheme allows withholding within responsive records only pursuant to a statutory exemption; “non-responsiveness” is not an independent basis to excise portions of responsive documents.
- FOIA’s public-interest inquiry focuses on disclosure that sheds light on government operations, including oversight of adjudicators and the handling of complaints.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit required the government to justify Exemption 6 redactions of immigration judges’ names with a tailored privacy–public-interest showing and held that agencies cannot redact portions of responsive FOIA records as merely “non-responsive” without invoking a statutory exemption.


Am. Immigr. Laws. Ass'n v. Exec. Office for Immigr. Rev., 830 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2016)