University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name ACLU v. Central Intelligence Agency NS-DC-0001
Docket / Court 1:10-cv-00436-RM ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) National Security
Attorney Organization ACLU National (all projects)
Case Summary
On January 3, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the government seeking disclosure of documents related to the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) use of predator drones for the purpose of targeted killings of individuals, including a ... read more >
On January 3, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the government seeking disclosure of documents related to the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) use of predator drones for the purpose of targeted killings of individuals, including a United States citizen. The Departments of Defense, Justice, and State provided some records but the CIA denied the request in a "Glomar" response, which declines either to confirm or deny the existence of any records. The ACLU filed an administrative appeal to the CIA in April 2010, but the agency failed to make a determination within the FOIA statutorily established timeline.

The ACLU filed suit on June 1, 2010 against the government in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) and requesting injunctive relief in the form of disclosure of the requested documents. Under court supervision, the Departments of Defense, Justice, and State conferred with the ACLU and produced documents according to a mutually agreeable schedule.

The CIA, however, moved for summary judgment in October 2010, arguing that whether it possessed the documents was itself exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemptions. The CIA argued that admitting the very existence of the documents would reveal whether it was involved or interested in drone strikes, which was classified information. The ACLU cross-filed for summary judgment and asserted that the CIA Director and other officials had already publicly acknowledged the existence of the drone program. The district court granted the CIA's motion for summary judgment on September 9, 2011. American Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Justice, 808 F. Supp. 2d 280 (D.D.C. 2011).

The ACLU appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in fall 2011. The D.C. Circuit Court found the CIA's Glomar response was not justified. American Civil Liberties Union v. Central Intelligence Agency, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Citing numerous examples of public statements by U.S. officials like the President and CIA Director, the court found it "implausible that the CIA does not possess a single document on the subject of drone strikes." 710 F.3d at 430. In March 2013, the case was remanded to the district court for determination of the kinds of documents that the CIA possesses and whether exemptions apply to those documents.

In May, the district court ordered briefing for summary judgment, following the recommendation of the CIA's briefing schedule. The schedule was delayed multiple times due to a series of government budget crises in the Fall of 2013. On February 12, 2014, the ACLU sent a notice to the court of a congressional transcript where the CIA publicly acknowledged drone operations. The court ordered a supplemental brief from the CIA regarding this public disclosure.

On, June 6, 2014, the court granted the CIA's motion to stay the proceedings until the completion of any further review of a recent decision in the Second Circuit that involved FOIA requests for some similar types of records. New York Times Co. v. DOJ, 752 F.3d 123 (2nd Cir., April 21, 2014). The Second Circuit revised and superseded their opinion on June 23, 2014, finding that the government's secrecy and privilege had been waived for some of the documents containing legal analysis relating to drone strikes. New York Times Co. v. DOJ, 756 F.3d 100 (2nd Cir., July 10, 2014).

On July 18, 2014, the court granted the defendant's request to dismiss the summary judgment motion. The court also found that the recent developments required further briefing and denied the ACLU's partial summary judgment without prejudice and scheduled further briefing.

On June 18, 2015, the district court granted summary judgment and denied ACLU's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court held that the CIA had demonstrated that it has not withheld any segregable, non-exempt materials other than previously disclosed White Paper and therefore denied ACLU’s request that it order the CIA to do so.

On October 14, 2016, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Elizabeth Homan - 10/07/2013
Neil Tiwari - 10/25/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
General
Confidentiality
International law
Records Disclosure
Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues
Causes of Action Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552
Defendant(s) Central Intelligence Agency
Department of Defense
Department of Justice
Department of State
Plaintiff Description The American Civil Liberties Union.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU National (all projects)
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Links Guest Post: New Resource — Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse FISA Archives
Just Security
Posted: Jun. 26, 2014
By: Margo Schlanger
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:10−cv−00436 (D.D.C.) 10/14/2016
NS-DC-0001-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Injunctive Relief 03/16/2010
NS-DC-0001-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief 06/01/2010
NS-DC-0001-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendant CIA's Motion for Summary Judgment 10/01/2010
NS-DC-0001-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant CIA's Motion for Summary Judgment 10/19/2010
NS-DC-0001-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion 09/09/2011 (808 F.Supp.2d 280) (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0001-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 09/09/2011 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0001-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation Regarding Voluntary Dismissal of Claims Against Certain Parties 10/26/2011
NS-DC-0001-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
[DOJ Appellate Brief] 05/21/2012
NS-DC-0001-0001.pdf | Detail
Order 07/11/2012
NS-DC-0001-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 03/15/2013 (710 F.3d 422)
NS-DC-0001-0010.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | External Link | Detail
Document Source: U.S. Court of Appeals website
Opinion 06/18/2015 (109 F.Supp.3d 220) (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0001-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Judges Collyer, Rosemary M. (D.D.C., FISC)
NS-DC-0001-0002 | NS-DC-0001-0007 | NS-DC-0001-0011 | NS-DC-0001-9000
Garland, Merrick B. (D.C. Circuit)
NS-DC-0001-0010
Griffith, Thomas Beall (D.C. Circuit)
NS-DC-0001-0010
Tatel, David S. (D.C. Circuit)
NS-DC-0001-0010
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Jaffer, Jameel (New York)
NS-DC-0001-0003 | NS-DC-0001-0004 | NS-DC-0001-9000
Kaufman, Brett Max (New York)
NS-DC-0001-9000
Manes, Jonathan (New York)
NS-DC-0001-0003 | NS-DC-0001-0004
Shamsi, Hina (New York)
NS-DC-0001-9000
Spitzer, Arthur (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-0003 | NS-DC-0001-0004 | NS-DC-0001-0008 | NS-DC-0001-9000
Wessler, Nathan Freed (New York)
NS-DC-0001-0008 | NS-DC-0001-9000
Wizner, Ben (New York)
NS-DC-0001-0003 | NS-DC-0001-0004 | NS-DC-0001-0008
Defendant's Lawyers Brinkmann, Beth S (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-0001
Collette, Matthew M. (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-0001
Delery, Stuart F. (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-0001
Elliott, Stephen McCoy (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-9000
Hancock, Catherine Y (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-0001
Machen, Ronald C (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-0001 | NS-DC-0001-0005 | NS-DC-0001-0008
Powell, Amy E. (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-0005 | NS-DC-0001-0008 | NS-DC-0001-9000
Shapiro, Elizabeth J. (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-0005 | NS-DC-0001-0008
West, Tony (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-0005 | NS-DC-0001-0008
Other Lawyers Popeo, Daniel J. (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-0006
Samp, Richard A. (District of Columbia)
NS-DC-0001-0006 | NS-DC-0001-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -