## Facts

- Ellen L. Ray and William H. Schaap submitted identical FOIA requests to the CIA seeking copies of any files the agency had on each of them.
- The CIA responded that it had no “files” on them but that documents in CIA files referred to them, and it withheld those documents under FOIA exemptions.
- After administrative appeals, Ray and Schaap sued in federal district court to compel disclosure.
- During litigation, the CIA released portions of the previously withheld material but continued to withhold other portions and sought summary judgment.
- The CIA’s exemption claims relied primarily on affidavits from a CIA official, Eloise Page, describing the withheld material and asserting the bases for nondisclosure.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the CIA, denied plaintiffs’ request for in camera inspection, and upheld nondisclosure under FOIA Exemption 1 (classified under Executive Order 11,652) and/or Exemption 3 (statutory protection for intelligence sources and methods and certain CIA organizational information under 50 U.S.C. §§ 403(d)(3), 403g).
- Ray and Schaap appealed, arguing the affidavits were too vague to support the exemptions and that the court should have undertaken further judicial review, including possible in camera inspection.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the CIA based principally on agency affidavits that allegedly lacked sufficient specificity to justify withholding under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct in camera inspection when the agency’s affidavits did not provide an adequate factual basis for judicial review of the exemption claims.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment for the CIA and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the CIA’s affidavits were ambiguous and insufficiently detailed to permit the court to evaluate whether the withheld information fit within the claimed exemptions.
- The court indicated that, on remand, the district court should require an adequate evidentiary showing—potentially including in camera inspection—so the court can make an independent determination of the exemption claims.

## Legal Principles

- In FOIA litigation, the agency bears the burden to justify nondisclosure, and summary judgment is proper only if the record provides a sufficient factual basis for the court to rule.
- Agency affidavits supporting FOIA exemptions must be detailed, specific, and nonconclusory; generalized or “bulk” descriptions that do not link particular exemptions to particular material may be inadequate.
- A district court must make an independent judicial assessment of exemption claims and may not rely solely on conclusory agency assertions, even absent evidence of bad faith.
- In camera inspection is an authorized tool to test exemption claims and may be appropriate when affidavits do not provide enough clarity for meaningful judicial review, including in national security cases involving Exemptions 1 and 3.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit required more than conclusory CIA affidavits to sustain FOIA withholding under Exemptions 1 and 3, vacating summary judgment and remanding for a record that allows independent judicial review, potentially through in camera inspection.


Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1978)