## Facts

- After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the President directed a wide-ranging investigation into the attacks and related terrorist threats.
- The Department of Justice (DOJ) and associated agencies interviewed over one thousand individuals; some were detained as the investigation proceeded.
- Public-interest organizations and media entities submitted FOIA requests seeking detention-related information, including detainees’ names, their attorneys’ names, arrest and release dates, locations of arrest and detention, and reasons for detention.
- DOJ refused disclosure, relying principally on FOIA Exemption 7(A), which permits withholding law-enforcement records when disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.
- The district court granted DOJ summary judgment as to most detention information under Exemption 7(A) but ordered release of detainees’ and attorneys’ names.
- Both sides appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether FOIA Exemption 7(A) permitted DOJ to withhold detainees’ names, attorneys’ names, and other detention information because disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.
2. Whether the First Amendment required public access to records identifying persons detained and questioned during an ongoing terrorism investigation.
3. Whether a common-law right of access required disclosure notwithstanding FOIA exemptions.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held Exemption 7(A) justified withholding all requested categories of detention information, including detainees’ and attorneys’ names.
- It affirmed the district court’s ruling to the extent it allowed withholding of most detention details under Exemption 7(A).
- It reversed the order compelling disclosure of detainees’ and attorneys’ names.
- It rejected the First Amendment and common-law access claims as independent grounds for disclosure.
- It remanded for entry of a dismissal judgment, resulting in judgment for DOJ.

## Legal Principles

- FOIA Exemption 7(A) allows categorical withholding of law-enforcement information when the agency shows disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing or prospective enforcement proceedings.
- In assessing “interference,” courts may credit agency explanations that disclosure would reveal the direction, scope, targets, or methods of an active investigation, including by enabling evasion, intimidation, or witness interference.
- Identities of individuals detained or investigated, and associated identifying information (including counsel identities), may be protected under Exemption 7(A) when disclosure would reveal investigative focus or strategy.
- The First Amendment right of access is limited and does not generally extend to government investigative records or detainee lists during an ongoing law-enforcement operation.
- Any common-law presumption of access to government records may be overcome by countervailing law-enforcement and national-security interests, particularly during an active investigation.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that FOIA Exemption 7(A) permitted DOJ to withhold all requested information about persons detained in the post–September 11 investigation, including detainees’ and attorneys’ names, and that neither the First Amendment nor common law independently required disclosure.


Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Stud. v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003)