## Facts

- A Special Counsel investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and issued a report describing investigative findings and prosecutorial declinations.
- The Department of Justice (DOJ) publicly released a version of the report with redactions.
- News organizations and a privacy advocacy group submitted FOIA requests seeking an unredacted report; DOJ withheld material under multiple exemptions, including FOIA Exemption 7(C).
- The disputed redactions concerned information about individuals investigated but not charged.
- DOJ asserted disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy by revealing stigmatizing investigative information about identifiable, uncharged individuals.
- The requester argued that disclosure would inform the public about how the Special Counsel and DOJ applied law to facts and made declination decisions.

## Issues

1. Whether portions of the report are “compiled for law enforcement purposes” such that Exemption 7(C) applies.
2. Whether Exemption 7(C) permits withholding passages that contain new, personally identifying, stigmatizing facts about uncharged individuals.
3. Whether Exemption 7(C) permits withholding passages that primarily explain legal reasoning and the application of law to facts already public elsewhere in the report.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment ruling for DOJ.
- It upheld redactions of passages containing personally identifying information about uncharged individuals that was not disclosed elsewhere and would be highly stigmatizing.
- It required disclosure of redacted passages that primarily reflected how the Special Counsel interpreted relevant law and applied it to already public facts in reaching declination decisions.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings.

## Legal Principles

- FOIA Exemption 7(C) allows withholding law-enforcement records when disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
- Exemption 7(C) requires balancing: (1) the privacy interests of individuals mentioned, against (2) the public interest in learning about government operations and activities.
- Uncharged individuals have substantial privacy interests in avoiding public release of identifying investigative details that could stigmatize reputation.
- The FOIA public interest is limited to information that sheds light on governmental decisionmaking; it does not extend to curiosity about private individuals.
- When withheld passages contain no new stigmatizing facts and primarily reveal government legal analysis and declination rationale applied to publicly available facts, the public interest in understanding prosecutorial decisionmaking can outweigh reduced privacy interests.

## Conclusion

The court held that Exemption 7(C) protects uncharged individuals from disclosure of new, identifying, stigmatizing investigative facts, but it does not justify withholding declination analysis that chiefly explains the government’s legal reasoning applied to facts already public, because that material materially informs the public about law-enforcement decisionmaking.


Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 18 F.4th 712 (D.C. Cir. 2021)