Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT

*

1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW

*

Suite 200

*

Washington, D.C. 20036

*

*

and

*

*

Noah Shachtman

*

The Daily Beast

*

555 W 18th Street

*

Fifth Floor

*

New York, NY 10011

*

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

* Civil Action No. 17-390

*

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

*

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

*

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

*

*

and

*

*

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

*

SECURITY

*

STOP-0655

*

245 Murray Lane, SW

*

Washington, D.C. 20528-0655

*

*

Defendants.

*

*

* * * * * * * * * * * *

COMPLAINT

This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et

seq., as amended, for the disclosure of agency records withheld from the plaintiffs The

James Madison Project and Noah Shachtman by the defendants Department of Justice

and Department of Homeland Security (as well as their subordinate entities).

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 11
JURISDICTION 1. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
VENUE 2. Venue is appropriate under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff The James Madison Project (“JMP”) is a non-partisan organization established in 1998 to promote government accountability and the reduction of secrecy, as well as educating the public on issues relating to intelligence and national security. It maintains a website at www.JamesMadisonProject.org. 4. Plaintiff Noah Shachtman (“Shachtman”) currently serves as the Executive Editor of The Daily Beast, and is a representative of the news media. 5. Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (e), and is in possession and/or control of the records requested by the plaintiffs that are the subject of this action. DOJ controls – and consequently serves as the proper party defendant for litigation purposes for – the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”). 6. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (e), and is in possession and/or control of the records requested by the plaintiffs that are the subject of this action. DHS controls – and consequently serves as the proper party defendant for litigation purposes for – the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”), Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 11
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. This lawsuit is brought under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). It seeks the disclosure of records that will shed light on the degree to which (if at all) the defendant federal agencies were consulted both prior and subsequent to the implementation of the so-called “Muslim Ban”. The requested records will also provide the public with clarity concerning the extent to which Members of Congress were consulted both prior and subsequent to the implementation of the “Muslim Ban”. 8. For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-ordertrump.html?mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD7796 3&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes. com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-ban-muslim-executive-order.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017). 9. In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics /donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-reaction/index.html (last accessed
3

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 11
January 30, 2017). 10. Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal
services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-young-lawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). Despite the issuance of the emergency stays by the different federal judges, reports emerged of CBP officials refusing to comply with the court orders. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles /2017/01/29/trump-s-border-patroldefies-judge-u-s-senator-at-dulles-airport-at-his-first-constitutional-crisis-unfolds.html (last accessed January 31, 2017); http://www.huffingtonpost. com/entry/dulles-airportfeds-violated-court-order_us_588d7274e4b08a14f7e67bcf (last accessed January 31, 2017). On February 4, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security stated that it would stop enforcing the Executive Order. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics /federal-judge-temporarily-halts-trump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/ (last accessed March 2, 2017).
COUNT ONE (DOJ OLC) 11. The plaintiffs, JMP and Shachtman (referred to jointly as “the Requesters”), repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 12. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to DOJ OLC a FOIA request. 13. The FOIA request specifically sought copies of records, including crossreferences, memorializing the following:
4

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 5 of 11
1) Any records memorializing discussions between DOJ OLC staff and private staff, Presidential transition staff, and/or White House staff of President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) regarding the legality of (and recommended means of implementing) an Executive Order barring entry of certain categories of foreign nationals based strictly on their nationality, including, but not limited to, individuals who qualify as refugees, U.S. legal permanent residents, and holders of a valid U.S. visa;
2) Any records memorializing discussions between DOJ OLC staff and other Federal agencies regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
3) Any records memorializing discussions among DOJ OLC staff regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
4) Any records memorializing discussions between DOJ OLC staff and Members of Congress (as well as Congressional staff members) regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
5) Any records memorializing final determinations by DOJ OLC staff regarding the extent to which an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1 would apply to U.S. citizens who hold dual citizenship; and
6) Any records memorializing final determinations by DOJ OLC staff regarding the legality of an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1.
14. The Requesters clarified that the scope of information outlined in paragraph 13
should encompass discussions and final determinations that occurred both prior and
subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017.
The Requesters also asked that DOJ OLC use, but not limit itself to, the search terms
“religious test”, “Christian ban”, “Jewish ban”, and “Muslim ban”.
15. The Requesters stated that DOJ OLC could limit the timeframe of its searches
from November 8, 2016, up until the date upon which DOJ OLC began conducting
searches for responsive records. The Requesters further clarified that the scope of DOJ
5

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 6 of 11
OLC’s search should not be limited to DOJ OLC-originated records. 16. In the FOIA request, the Requesters pre-emptively waived any objection to the
redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waived any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
17. In terms of all other third parties who work for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters explained in detail that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of the FOIA request. Relying upon the public interest aspect outlined regarding third party privacy interests, the Requesters stated that they were also seeking a waiver of fees or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees, as well as expedited processing.
18. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from DOJ OLC. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies.
19. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by DOJ OLC of said right.
COUNT TWO (DHS) 20. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 21. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to DHS a FOIA request.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 7 of 11
22. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 17, as the scope of the FOIA request submitted to DHS, as well as the issues of third party privacy interests, fee waiver and expedited processing, were addressed in identical fashion in the DOJ OLC request.
23. By letter dated February 6, 2017, DHS acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it Request Number 2017-HQFO-00302. In its letter, DHS stated that it was granting a fee waiver and expedited processing.
24. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from DHS. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies.
25. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by DHS of said right.
COUNT THREE (TSA) 26. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 27. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to TSA a FOIA request. 28. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 17, as the scope of the FOIA request submitted to TSA, as well as the issues of third party privacy interests, fee waiver and expedited processing, were addressed in identical fashion in the DOJ OLC request. 29. By letter dated February 7, 2017, TSA acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it Request Number 2017-HQFO-00326. In its letter, TSA stated that it was granting a fee waiver.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 8 of 11
30. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from TSA. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies.
31. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by TSA of said right.
COUNT FOUR (CBP) 32. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 33. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to CBP a FOIA request. 34. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 17, as the scope of the FOIA request submitted to CBP, as well as the issues of third party privacy interests, fee waiver and expedited processing, were addressed in identical fashion in the DOJ OLC request. 35. By letter dated February 22, 2017, CBP acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it Request Number 2017-HQFO-00426. In its letter, CBP stated that it was granting a fee waiver and expedited processing. 36. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from CBP. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies. 37. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by CBP of said right.
COUNT FIVE (ICE) 38. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 9 of 11
39. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to ICE a FOIA request. 40. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 17, as the scope of the FOIA request submitted to ICE, as well as the issues of third party privacy interests, fee waiver and expedited processing, were addressed in identical fashion in the DOJ OLC request. 41. By letter dated February 13, 2017, ICE acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it Request Number 2017-HQFO-00334. In its letter, ICE stated that it was granting a fee waiver and expedited processing. 42. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from ICE. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies. 43. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by ICE of said right.
COUNT SIX (USCIS) 44. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 45. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to USCIS a FOIA request. 46. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 17, as the scope of the FOIA request submitted to USCIS, as well as the issues of third party privacy interests, fee waiver and expedited processing, were addressed in identical fashion in the DOJ OLC request.
9

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 10 of 11
47. By letter dated February 2, 2017, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it Request Number 2017-HQFO-00282. In its letter, USCIS stated that it was granting a fee waiver and expedited processing.
48. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from USCIS. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies.
49. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by USCIS of said right.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah Shachtman pray that this Court:
(1) Order the defendant federal agencies to disclose the requested records in their entirety and make copies promptly available to the plaintiffs;
(2) Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees as provided in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d);
(4) expedite this action in every way pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657 (a); and (5) grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
10

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 11 of 11

Date: March 3, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ __________________________ Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532 Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Brad@MarkZaid.com Mark@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1-1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1-2 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1-2 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1-3 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 2
FOIA Summons
1/13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CLEAR FORM

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT, et al.
)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.

)

)

Defendant

)

Civil Action No.17-390

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Department of Homeland Security
STOP-0655 245 Murray Lane, SW Washington, D.C. 20528-0655

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 30 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
Bradley P. Moss, Esq. Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

If you fail to respond, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

ANGELA D. CAESAR, CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1-3 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2
on
on o 17-390

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
on o (name of individual and title, if any) on (date)

’

on

on on n

(place)

on (date)

o

’ on (date)

on

n

n

no on o
oo n

oo

(name)

n

on o

no n

o

’ n

on on (name of individual)

o

o o on

o (name of organization) on (date)

o o

’

n

on n

o

’

(specify):

o

n

o

o oo

0

n no

n o on

Server’s signature Printed name and title

on n o on

n

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Reset

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1-4 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 2
FOIA Summons
1/13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CLEAR FORM

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT, et al.
)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.

)

)

Defendant

)

Civil Action No.17-390

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Department of Homeland Security
STOP-0655 245 Murray Lane, SW Washington, D.C. 20528-0655

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 30 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
Bradley P. Moss, Esq. Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

If you fail to respond, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

ANGELA D. CAESAR, CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1-4 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2
on
on o 17-390

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
on o (name of individual and title, if any) on (date)

’

on

on on n

(place)

on (date)

o

’ on (date)

on

n

n

no on o
oo n

oo

(name)

n

on o

no n

o

’ n

on on (name of individual)

o

o o on

o (name of organization) on (date)

o o

’

n

on n

o

’

(specify):

o

n

o

o oo

0

n no

n o on

Server’s signature Printed name and title

on n o on

n

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Reset

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1-5 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 2
FOIA Summons
1/13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CLEAR FORM

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT, et al.
)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.

)

)

Defendant

)

Civil Action No.17-390

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Department of Homeland Security
STOP-0655 245 Murray Lane, SW Washington, D.C. 20528-0655

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 30 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
Bradley P. Moss, Esq. Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

If you fail to respond, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

ANGELA D. CAESAR, CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1-5 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2
on
on o 17-390

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
on o (name of individual and title, if any) on (date)

’

on

on on n

(place)

on (date)

o

’ on (date)

on

n

n

no on o
oo n

oo

(name)

n

on o

no n

o

’ n

on on (name of individual)

o

o o on

o (name of organization) on (date)

o o

’

n

on n

o

’

(specify):

o

n

o

o oo

0

n no

n o on

Server’s signature Printed name and title

on n o on

n

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Reset

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1-6 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 2
FOIA Summons
1/13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CLEAR FORM

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT, et al.
)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.

)

)

Defendant

)

Civil Action No.17-390

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Department of Homeland Security
STOP-0655 245 Murray Lane, SW Washington, D.C. 20528-0655

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 30 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
Bradley P. Moss, Esq. Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

If you fail to respond, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

ANGELA D. CAESAR, CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 1-6 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2
on
on o 17-390

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
on o (name of individual and title, if any) on (date)

’

on

on on n

(place)

on (date)

o

’ on (date)

on

n

n

no on o
oo n

oo

(name)

n

on o

no n

o

’ n

on on (name of individual)

o

o o on

o (name of organization) on (date)

o o

’

n

on n

o

’

(specify):

o

n

o

o oo

0

n no

n o on

Server’s signature Printed name and title

on n o on

n

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Reset

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit 1
TSA Request

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 6
The James Madison Project 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 498-0011 (202) 330-5610 fax

E-Mail: FOIA@JamesMadisonProject.org http://www.JamesMadisonProject.org

January 31, 2017

VIA E-MAIL

Regina McCoy FOIA Officer Transportation Security Administration 11th Floor, East Tower, TSA-20 601 S. 12th Street Arlington, VA 22202-4220

Re: FOIA Request – Guidance For Immigration Executive Order

Dear Ms. McCoy:

This is a request on behalf of The James Madison Project (“JMP”), Ken Vogel (“Mr. Vogel”), and Josh Gerstein (“Mr. Gerstein”)(hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. This request seeks copies of Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) records, including cross-references, memorializing the following:

1) Guidance provided by TSA to private and commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to admission, denial of admission, and/or deportation of individuals subject to President Trump’s Executive Order, signed on January 27, 2017;

2) Communications (that are not encompassed by category #1) between TSA and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order, signed January 27, 2017; and

3) Communications (that are not encompassed by categories #1 or #2) between TSA and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to the judicial rulings imposing emergency stays and/or restraining orders enjoining President Trump’s Executive Order, signed January 27, 2017.

______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 3 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?mtrref=www. nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD77963&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-banmuslim-executive-order.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigrationreaction/index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
To be clear, the scope of the information sought in this request should encompass communications that occurred both prior and subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017. TSA can limit the timeframe of its search from January 20, 2017, up until the date the agency begins conducting actual searches for responsive records. The scope of the searches should not be limited to TSA-originated records and should be construed to include records that are currently in the possession of a U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management.
The Requesters are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waive any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002)(setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 4 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).
The work performed by these third parties (whether they be U.S. Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, provide airlines with guidance and instructions on the impact of President Trump’s Executive Order so that those airlines could incorporate that new information into their own standard operating procedures. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly by revealing how TSA described the restrictions imposed by the Executive Order, it would be reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information indexed to their name.1
We are also requesting a waiver of or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees. JMP, Mr. Vogel, and Mr. Gerstein qualify – in their own respective rights – for designation as representatives of the news media.
JMP is a non-partisan organization dedicating to promoting government accountability and the reduction of secrecy. http://jamesmadisonproject.org/ (last accessed August 7, 2015). The organization is a frequent FOIA requester and litigator and Federal agencies routinely and regularly grant JMP fee waivers. Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein are the chief investigative reporter and senior reporter, respectively, for Politico. http://www.politico.com/staff/kenneth-p-vogel (last accessed December 22, 2016); http://www.politico.com/staff/josh-gerstein (last accessed December 22, 2016).
The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles published by Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii),
the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.
The Requesters can demonstrate their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein maintain the ability to produce news articles that
1 We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might ultimately be appropriate as TSA processes the responsive records.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 5 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
will be published by Politico. In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, please do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for explicit authorization.
There is considerable public interest in disclosure of the requested records. Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-younglawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). Despite the issuance of the emergency stays by the different federal judges, reports emerged of CBP officials refusing to comply with the court orders. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/29/trump-s-borderpatrol-defies-judge-u-s-senator-at-dulles-airport-at-his-first-constitutional-crisis-unfolds.html (last accessed January 31, 2017); http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dulles-airport-fedsviolated-court-order_us_588d7274e4b08a14f7e67bcf (last accessed January 31, 2017). Disclosure of records responsive to this request would, among other things, shed light on how TSA was explaining to the airlines the impact of the court rulings.
Finally, and again in reliance upon the same public interest reasons outlined above, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
The records responsive to this FOIA request clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has an urgent and active need to know. The bureaucratic dysfunction surrounding the implementation of the Executive Order has impacted hundreds of individuals who had valid paperwork authorizing entry into the United States, and remains an ongoing legal dispute to this day. This more than sufficiently satisfies the statutory requirement to demonstrate a “compelling need”.
If TSA denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible. Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif. Please provide soft-copy records by email or on a CD if email is not feasible. However, the Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance that such a fee is required, the Requesters will accept a paper copy of responsive records.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 907-7945 or via e-mail at brad@jamesmadisonproject.org.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 6 of 6 The James Madison Project
______________________________________________________________________________ Sincerely, /s/ Bradley P. Moss
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-2 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit 2
CBP Request

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-2 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 6
The James Madison Project 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 498-0011 (202) 330-5610 fax

E-Mail: FOIA@JamesMadisonProject.org http://www.JamesMadisonProject.org

January 31, 2017

VIA ONLINE PORTAL

Sabrina Burroughs FOIA Officer U.S. Customs & Border Protection MS 1181 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20229-1181

Re: FOIA Request – Guidance For Immigration Executive Order

Dear Ms. Burroughs:

This is a request on behalf of The James Madison Project (“JMP”), Ken Vogel (“Mr. Vogel”), and Josh Gerstein (“Mr. Gerstein”)(hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. This request seeks copies of Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) records, including cross-references, memorializing the following:

1) Guidance provided by CBP to private and commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to admission, denial of admission, and/or deportation of individuals subject to President Trump’s Executive Order, signed on January 27, 2017;

2) Communications (that are not encompassed by category #1) between CBP and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order, signed January 27, 2017; and

3) Communications (that are not encompassed by categories #1 or #2) between CBP and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to the judicial rulings imposing emergency stays and/or restraining orders enjoining President Trump’s Executive Order, signed January 27, 2017.

______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-2 Filed 05/12/17 Page 3 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?mtrref=www. nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD77963&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-banmuslim-executive-order.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigrationreaction/index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
To be clear, the scope of the information sought in this request should encompass communications that occurred both prior and subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017. CBP can limit the timeframe of its search from January 20, 2017, up until the date the agency begins conducting actual searches for responsive records. The scope of the searches should not be limited to CBP-originated records and should be construed to include records that are currently in the possession of a U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management.
The Requesters are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waive any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002)(setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-2 Filed 05/12/17 Page 4 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).
The work performed by these third parties (whether they be U.S. Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, provide airlines with guidance and instructions on the impact of President Trump’s Executive Order so that those airlines could incorporate that new information into their own standard operating procedures. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly by revealing how CBP described the restrictions imposed by the Executive Order, it would be reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information indexed to their name.1
We are also requesting a waiver of or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees. JMP, Mr. Vogel, and Mr. Gerstein qualify – in their own respective rights – for designation as representatives of the news media.
JMP is a non-partisan organization dedicating to promoting government accountability and the reduction of secrecy. http://jamesmadisonproject.org/ (last accessed August 7, 2015). The organization is a frequent FOIA requester and litigator and Federal agencies routinely and regularly grant JMP fee waivers. Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein are the chief investigative reporter and senior reporter, respectively, for Politico. http://www.politico.com/staff/kenneth-p-vogel (last accessed December 22, 2016); http://www.politico.com/staff/josh-gerstein (last accessed December 22, 2016).
The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles published by Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii),
the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.
The Requesters can demonstrate their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein maintain the ability to produce news articles that
1 We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might ultimately be appropriate as CBP processes the responsive records.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-2 Filed 05/12/17 Page 5 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
will be published by Politico. In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, please do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for explicit authorization.
There is considerable public interest in disclosure of the requested records. Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-younglawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). Despite the issuance of the emergency stays by the different federal judges, reports emerged of CBP officials refusing to comply with the court orders. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/29/trump-s-borderpatrol-defies-judge-u-s-senator-at-dulles-airport-at-his-first-constitutional-crisis-unfolds.html (last accessed January 31, 2017); http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dulles-airport-fedsviolated-court-order_us_588d7274e4b08a14f7e67bcf (last accessed January 31, 2017). Disclosure of records responsive to this request would, among other things, shed light on how CBP was explaining to the airlines the impact of the court rulings.
Finally, and again in reliance upon the same public interest reasons outlined above, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
The records responsive to this FOIA request clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has an urgent and active need to know. The bureaucratic dysfunction surrounding the implementation of the Executive Order has impacted hundreds of individuals who had valid paperwork authorizing entry into the United States, and remains an ongoing legal dispute to this day. This more than sufficiently satisfies the statutory requirement to demonstrate a “compelling need”.
If CBP denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible. Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif. Please provide soft-copy records by email or on a CD if email is not feasible. However, the Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance that such a fee is required, the Requesters will accept a paper copy of responsive records.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 907-7945 or via e-mail at brad@jamesmadisonproject.org.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-2 Filed 05/12/17 Page 6 of 6 The James Madison Project
______________________________________________________________________________ Sincerely, /s/ Bradley P. Moss
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-3 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit 3
ICE Request

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-3 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 6
The James Madison Project 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 498-0011 (202) 330-5610 fax

E-Mail: FOIA@JamesMadisonProject.org http://www.JamesMadisonProject.org

January 31, 2017

VIA E-MAIL

Catrina Pavlick-Keenan FOIA Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Mail Stop 5009 500 12th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20536-5009

Re: FOIA Request – Guidance For Immigration Executive Order

Dear Ms. Keenan:

This is a request on behalf of The James Madison Project (“JMP”), Ken Vogel (“Mr. Vogel”), and Josh Gerstein (“Mr. Gerstein”)(hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. This request seeks copies of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) records, including cross-references, memorializing the following:

1) Guidance provided by ICE to private and commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to admission, denial of admission, and/or deportation of individuals subject to President Trump’s Executive Order, signed on January 27, 2017;

2) Communications (that are not encompassed by category #1) between ICE and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order, signed January 27, 2017; and

3) Communications (that are not encompassed by categories #1 or #2) between ICE and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to the judicial rulings imposing emergency stays and/or restraining orders enjoining President Trump’s Executive Order, signed January 27, 2017.

______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-3 Filed 05/12/17 Page 3 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?mtrref=www. nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD77963&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-banmuslim-executive-order.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigrationreaction/index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
To be clear, the scope of the information sought in this request should encompass communications that occurred both prior and subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017. ICE can limit the timeframe of its search from January 20, 2017, up until the date the agency begins conducting actual searches for responsive records. The scope of the searches should not be limited to ICE-originated records and should be construed to include records that are currently in the possession of a U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management.
The Requesters are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waive any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002)(setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-3 Filed 05/12/17 Page 4 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).
The work performed by these third parties (whether they be U.S. Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, provide airlines with guidance and instructions on the impact of President Trump’s Executive Order so that those airlines could incorporate that new information into their own standard operating procedures. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly by revealing how ICE described the restrictions imposed by the Executive Order, it would be reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information indexed to their name.1
We are also requesting a waiver of or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees. JMP, Mr. Vogel, and Mr. Gerstein qualify – in their own respective rights – for designation as representatives of the news media.
JMP is a non-partisan organization dedicating to promoting government accountability and the reduction of secrecy. http://jamesmadisonproject.org/ (last accessed August 7, 2015). The organization is a frequent FOIA requester and litigator and Federal agencies routinely and regularly grant JMP fee waivers. Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein are the chief investigative reporter and senior reporter, respectively, for Politico. http://www.politico.com/staff/kenneth-p-vogel (last accessed December 22, 2016); http://www.politico.com/staff/josh-gerstein (last accessed December 22, 2016).
The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles published by Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii),
the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.
The Requesters can demonstrate their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein maintain the ability to produce news articles that
1 We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might ultimately be appropriate as ICE processes the responsive records.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-3 Filed 05/12/17 Page 5 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
will be published by Politico. In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, please do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for explicit authorization.
There is considerable public interest in disclosure of the requested records. Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-younglawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). Despite the issuance of the emergency stays by the different federal judges, reports emerged of CBP officials refusing to comply with the court orders. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/29/trump-s-borderpatrol-defies-judge-u-s-senator-at-dulles-airport-at-his-first-constitutional-crisis-unfolds.html (last accessed January 31, 2017); http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dulles-airport-fedsviolated-court-order_us_588d7274e4b08a14f7e67bcf (last accessed January 31, 2017). Disclosure of records responsive to this request would, among other things, shed light on how ICE was explaining to the airlines the impact of the court rulings.
Finally, and again in reliance upon the same public interest reasons outlined above, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
The records responsive to this FOIA request clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has an urgent and active need to know. The bureaucratic dysfunction surrounding the implementation of the Executive Order has impacted hundreds of individuals who had valid paperwork authorizing entry into the United States, and remains an ongoing legal dispute to this day. This more than sufficiently satisfies the statutory requirement to demonstrate a “compelling need”.
If ICE denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible. Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif. Please provide soft-copy records by email or on a CD if email is not feasible. However, the Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance that such a fee is required, the Requesters will accept a paper copy of responsive records.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 907-7945 or via e-mail at brad@jamesmadisonproject.org.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-3 Filed 05/12/17 Page 6 of 6 The James Madison Project
______________________________________________________________________________ Sincerely, /s/ Bradley P. Moss
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-4 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit 4
USCIS Request

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-4 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 6
The James Madison Project 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 498-0011 (202) 330-5610 fax

E-Mail: FOIA@JamesMadisonProject.org http://www.JamesMadisonProject.org

January 31, 2017

VIA E-MAIL

Jill Eggleston FOIA Officer U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services National Records Center FOIA/PA Office P.O. Box 648010 Lee’s Summit, MO 64064-8010

Re: FOIA Request – Guidance For Immigration Executive Order

Dear Ms. Eggleston:

This is a request on behalf of The James Madison Project (“JMP”), Ken Vogel (“Mr. Vogel”), and Josh Gerstein (“Mr. Gerstein”)(hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. This request seeks copies of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) records, including crossreferences, memorializing the following:

1) Guidance provided by USCIS to private and commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to admission, denial of admission, and/or deportation of individuals subject to President Trump’s Executive Order, signed on January 27, 2017;

2) Communications (that are not encompassed by category #1) between USCIS and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order, signed January 27, 2017; and

3) Communications (that are not encompassed by categories #1 or #2) between USCIS and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to the judicial rulings imposing emergency stays and/or restraining orders enjoining President Trump’s Executive Order, signed January 27, 2017.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-4 Filed 05/12/17 Page 3 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?mtrref=www. nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD77963&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-banmuslim-executive-order.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigrationreaction/index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
To be clear, the scope of the information sought in this request should encompass communications that occurred both prior and subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017. USCIS can limit the timeframe of its search from January 20, 2017, up until the date the agency begins conducting actual searches for responsive records. The scope of the searches should not be limited to USCIS-originated records and should be construed to include records that are currently in the possession of a U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management.
The Requesters are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waive any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002)(setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-4 Filed 05/12/17 Page 4 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).
The work performed by these third parties (whether they be U.S. Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, provide airlines with guidance and instructions on the impact of President Trump’s Executive Order so that those airlines could incorporate that new information into their own standard operating procedures. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly by revealing how USCIS described the restrictions imposed by the Executive Order, it would be reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information indexed to their name.1
We are also requesting a waiver of or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees. JMP, Mr. Vogel, and Mr. Gerstein qualify – in their own respective rights – for designation as representatives of the news media.
JMP is a non-partisan organization dedicating to promoting government accountability and the reduction of secrecy. http://jamesmadisonproject.org/ (last accessed August 7, 2015). The organization is a frequent FOIA requester and litigator and Federal agencies routinely and regularly grant JMP fee waivers. Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein are the chief investigative reporter and senior reporter, respectively, for Politico. http://www.politico.com/staff/kenneth-p-vogel (last accessed December 22, 2016); http://www.politico.com/staff/josh-gerstein (last accessed December 22, 2016).
The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles published by Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii),
the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.
The Requesters can demonstrate their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein maintain the ability to produce news articles that
1 We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might ultimately be appropriate as USCIS processes the responsive records.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-4 Filed 05/12/17 Page 5 of 6
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
will be published by Politico. In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, please do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for explicit authorization.
There is considerable public interest in disclosure of the requested records. Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-younglawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). Despite the issuance of the emergency stays by the different federal judges, reports emerged of CBP officials refusing to comply with the court orders. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/29/trump-s-borderpatrol-defies-judge-u-s-senator-at-dulles-airport-at-his-first-constitutional-crisis-unfolds.html (last accessed January 31, 2017); http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dulles-airport-fedsviolated-court-order_us_588d7274e4b08a14f7e67bcf (last accessed January 31, 2017). Disclosure of records responsive to this request would, among other things, shed light on how USCIS was explaining to the airlines the impact of the court rulings.
Finally, and again in reliance upon the same public interest reasons outlined above, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
The records responsive to this FOIA request clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has an urgent and active need to know. The bureaucratic dysfunction surrounding the implementation of the Executive Order has impacted hundreds of individuals who had valid paperwork authorizing entry into the United States, and remains an ongoing legal dispute to this day. This more than sufficiently satisfies the statutory requirement to demonstrate a “compelling need”.
If USCIS denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible. Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif. Please provide soft-copy records by email or on a CD if email is not feasible. However, the Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance that such a fee is required, the Requesters will accept a paper copy of responsive records.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 907-7945 or via e-mail at brad@jamesmadisonproject.org.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-4 Filed 05/12/17 Page 6 of 6 The James Madison Project
______________________________________________________________________________ Sincerely, /s/ Bradley P. Moss
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-5 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit 5
DHS Request

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-5 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 6

From: To: Subject: Date:

Bradley P. Moss, Esq. FOIA RE: FOIA request Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:38:14 PM

Karen Neuman FOIA Officer Department of Homeland Security Headquarters STOP-0655 245 Murray Lane, SW Washington, D.C. 20528-0655

Re: FOIA Request – Guidance For Immigration Executive Order

Dear Ms. Neuman:

This is a request on behalf of The James Madison Project (“JMP”), Ken Vogel (“Mr. Vogel”), and Josh Gerstein (“Mr. Gerstein”)(hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. This request seeks copies of Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) records, including cross-references, memorializing the following:

1) Guidance provided by DHS to private and commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to admission, denial of admission, and/or deportation of individuals subject to President Trump’s Executive Order, signed on January 27, 2017;
2) Communications (that are not encompassed by category #1) between DHS and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order, signed January 27, 2017; and
3) Communications (that are not encompassed by categories #1 or #2) between DHS and private and/or commercial airlines operating at U.S. airports with respect to the judicial rulings imposing emergency stays and/or restraining orders enjoining President Trump’s Executive Order, signed January 27, 2017.
For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?mtrref=www. nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD77963&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-ban-muslim-executiveorder.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017).

In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-5 Filed 05/12/17 Page 3 of 6
different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigrationreaction/index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
To be clear, the scope of the information sought in this request should encompass communications that occurred both prior and subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017. DHS can limit the timeframe of its search from January 20, 2017, up until the date the agency begins conducting actual searches for responsive records. The scope of the searches should not be limited to DHS-originated records and should be construed to include records that are currently in the possession of a U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management.
The Requesters are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waive any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002)(setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).
The work performed by these third parties (whether they be U.S. Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, provide airlines with guidance and instructions on the impact of President Trump’s Executive Order so that those airlines could incorporate that new information into their own standard operating procedures. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly by revealing how DHS described the restrictions imposed by the Executive Order, it would be reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information
[1] indexed to their name.
We are also requesting a waiver of or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees. JMP, Mr. Vogel, and Mr. Gerstein qualify – in their own respective rights – for designation as representatives of the news media.

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-5 Filed 05/12/17 Page 4 of 6
JMP is a non-partisan organization dedicating to promoting government accountability and the reduction of secrecy. http://jamesmadisonproject.org/ (last accessed August 7, 2015). The organization is a frequent FOIA requester and litigator and Federal agencies routinely and regularly grant JMP fee waivers. Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein are the chief investigative reporter and senior reporter, respectively, for Politico. http://www.politico.com/staff/kenneth-p-vogel (last accessed December 22, 2016); http://www.politico.com/staff/josh-gerstein (last accessed December 22, 2016).
The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles published by Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii),
the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.
The Requesters can demonstrate their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Mr. Vogel and Mr. Gerstein maintain the ability to produce news articles that will be published by Politico. In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, please do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for explicit authorization.
There is considerable public interest in disclosure of the requested records. Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-younglawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). Despite the issuance of the emergency stays by the different federal judges, reports emerged of CBP officials refusing to comply with the court orders. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/29/trump-s-border-patroldefies-judge-u-s-senator-at-dulles-airport-at-his-first-constitutional-crisis-unfolds.html (last accessed January 31, 2017); http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dulles-airport-feds-violated-courtorder_us_588d7274e4b08a14f7e67bcf (last accessed January 31, 2017). Disclosure of records responsive to this request would, among other things, shed light on how DHS was explaining to the airlines the impact of the court rulings.
Finally, and again in reliance upon the same public interest reasons outlined above, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
The records responsive to this FOIA request clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has an urgent and active need to know. The bureaucratic dysfunction surrounding the implementation of the Executive Order has impacted hundreds of

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-5 Filed 05/12/17 Page 5 of 6
individuals who had valid paperwork authorizing entry into the United States, and remains an ongoing legal dispute to this day. This more than sufficiently satisfies the statutory requirement to demonstrate a “compelling need”.
If DHS denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible. Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif. Please provide soft-copy records by email or on a CD if email is not feasible. However, the Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance that such a fee is required, the Requesters will accept a paper copy of responsive records.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 907-7945 or via e-mail at brad@jamesmadisonproject.org.
Sincerely,
/s/
Bradley P. Moss
From: Bradley P. Moss, Esq. [mailto:brad@markzaid.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:35 PM To: foia@hq.dhs.gov Cc: 'Mark Zaid' <mark@markzaid.com> Subject: FOIA request
Ms. Neuman –
Please find attached a FOIA request submitted on behalf of The James Madison Project, Ken Vogel, and Josh Gerstein.
Regards,
Brad Moss
This electronic mail (e-mail) transmission is meant solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. It contains confidential information that may also be legally privileged. Any copying, dissemination or distribution of the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the addressee or his or her agent for such purposes is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and purge the original and all copies thereof. Thank you. Bradley Prescott Moss, Esq. Partner Mark S. Zaid, P.C.

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 5-5 Filed 05/12/17 Page 6 of 6
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 C: (202) 907-7945 F: (202) 558-4432
[1] We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might
ultimately be appropriate as DHS processes the responsive records.

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 7
ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
In order to administer this civil action in a manner fair to the litigants and consistent with the parties’ interest in completing this litigation in the shortest possible time and at the least possible cost, it is, hereby
ORDERED that the parties are directed to comply with each of the directives set forth in this Order. The Court will hold the parties responsible for following these directives; failure to conform to this Order’s directives may, when appropriate, result in the imposition of sanctions.
1. SERVICE OF COMPLAINT. Plaintiff(s) must promptly serve the complaint on Defendant(s) in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and file proof of service in accordance with Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“Local Civil Rules”) Rule 5.3.
2. REMOVED ACTIONS. Defendant(s) removing an action to this Court must re-file any answer as a supplement to the petition and re-notice any pending motion.
3. DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS. Where a corporation is a party or intervenor, counsel of record for that party or intervenor shall file a certificate listing any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of that party or intervenor which, to the knowledge of counsel, has any outstanding securities in the hands of the public. Such certificate shall be filed with the party’s first pleading. The purpose of this certificate is to enable the Judges of this Court to determine the need for recusal. Counsel have the continuing obligation to advise the Court of any change. See LCvR 7.1.
4. ELECTRONIC FILING. All documents in this case are to be filed electronically, except with prior leave of the Court upon good cause shown, and in the case of the exceptions noted below. All electronically filed documents are to be in Portable Data Format (.pdf). In order to enable the Court’s efficient resolution of all matters in this case, all filings shall be submitted in text searchable PDF files, directly converted from the word-processing format into PDF so as to preserve their searchability and readability. (The Court recognizes an exception for exhibits that must be scanned because they exist only in paper format.).
(A) EXCEPTIONS TO ELECTRONIC FILING.
(i) Every document filed under seal in a totally sealed case shall be filed in paper form accompanied by an electronic copy in a format deemed compatible by the Clerk’s Office with CM/ECF filing. See LCvR 5.4(e)(1).
(ii) In a case involving a pro se party, electronic filing procedures will be followed by parties represented by counsel only. The party appearing

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/06/17 Page 2 of 7
pro se shall continue to file documents in paper form with the Clerk’s Office. Parties represented by counsel must serve documents upon pro se parties in paper form.
(B) Absent specific statutory authority, a proposed sealed document in an otherwise unsealed case must be accompanied with a motion to seal. in accordance with Local Civil Rule 5.1(h) and filed pursuant to the procedures established by the Clerk’s Office. Motions to seal should explain why sealing is appropriate with reference to the factors identified in United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 292 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Failure to file a proper motion to seal may result in the document being placed in the public record.
(C) CM/ECF Passwords may only be used only by the person to whom they are assigned or, in the case of an attorney, by that attorney or an authorized employee or agent of that attorney’s law office or organization. The use of a CM/ECF password to login and submit documents creates an electronic record that operates and serves as the signature of the person to whom the password is assigned for all purposes under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.
(D) The electronic submission of any document in accordance with these procedures constitutes filing for all purposes under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court and simultaneously creates an official docket entry. A person filing by electronic means is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the official docket entry generated by the CM/ECF software. See LCvR 5.3(c)(2).
(E) No certificate of service is required for documents filed electronically. Service is complete upon electronic submission of an order or document and will be effected by electronic notice. Counsel are responsible for monitoring their e-mail accounts and, upon receipt of notice of an electronic filing, for retrieving the order or document electronically.
(F) Electronically filing a document that contains a declaration, verification, certificate, sworn statement, oath or affidavit certifies that the original signed document is in the possession of the attorney or pro se party responsible for the filing and that it is available for review upon request by a party or by the Court. LCvR 5.4(b)(5)
(G) The Court may take into consideration technical difficulties experienced by a filer when presented a late filing. However, parties who wait until the last minute to begin filing are warned that technical difficulties do not necessarily constitute “good cause” or “excusable neglect” justifying an extension of the applicable deadline(s). FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b). Further, no allowance can be made for late filing documents whose time limits are jurisdictional.
(H) Attorneys are to be precise in describing the type of document and requested relief when making electronic filings with the Court, because that description

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/06/17 Page 3 of 7
becomes the official docket entry recorded in the case. Failure to be accurate and thorough in the description of documents electronically filed may result in action adverse to the attorney.
5. COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COURT. The parties should endeavor to keep communications with Chambers to a minimum. Ex parte communications on matters other than scheduling are strictly prohibited; if the parties need to contact Chambers, it must be done jointly pursuant to a conference call arranged by the parties.
6. APPEARANCES AT HEARINGS. Principal trial counsel must appear at all hearings unless excused by the Court in advance.
7. MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND RE-SCHEDULING OF HEARINGS. Motions for extensions of time and to re-schedule hearings are strongly discouraged; they will be granted only in truly exceptional or compelling circumstances and parties should not expect the Court to grant extensions. The Court will not entertain or honor stipulations for extensions of time or for the re-scheduling of hearings; parties must file a written motion in accordance with the following instructions:
(A) Motions for extensions of time must be filed at least four (4) business days prior to the first affected deadline.
(B) Motions to continue a hearing must be filed at least four business days prior to the scheduled hearing.
(C) All motions for extensions of time and for re-scheduling of hearings must include the following or they will not be considered:
(i) The specific grounds for the extension or the re-scheduling of the hearing;
(ii) The number of previous extensions or continuances, if any, granted to each party;
(iii) A statement of the impact that the requested extension or continuance would have on all other previously set deadlines;
(iv) A proposed schedule for any other affected deadlines, to be proposed only after consulting with opposing counsel; and
(v) A statement of whether or not opposing counsel opposes the motion in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7(m).
8. DISCOVERY DISPUTES. The parties are referred to Local Civil Rule 26.2 and are expected to fully comply with its directives. Moreover, counsel are required, under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 7(m), to confer in good faith in an effort to resolve any discovery dispute before bringing it to the Court’s attention. The parties shall not file a discovery motion without prior consultation with opposing counsel. If, in what should be the unusual case, the parties are unable to resolve

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/06/17 Page 4 of 7
their discovery dispute, counsel shall contact Chambers jointly in order to arrange for a telephone conference with the Court.
9. DEPOSITIONS. Counsel must adhere to the following guidelines when taking a deposition:
(A) Counsel for the deponent shall refrain from gratuitous comments and from directing the deponent as to times, dates, documents, testimony, and the like;
(B) Counsel shall refrain from cuing the deponent by objecting in any manner other than stating an objection for the record followed by a word or two describing the legal basis for the objection;
(C) Counsel shall refrain from directing the deponent not to answer any question except for reasons which conform to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2);
(D) Counsel shall refrain from engaging in dialogue on the record during the course of the deposition;
(E) If counsel for any party or person given notice of the deposition believes that these conditions are not being adhered to, that counsel may call for suspension of the deposition and then immediately apply to the Court for a ruling and remedy. When appropriate, the Court will impose sanctions;
(F) All counsel are to conduct themselves in a civil, polite, and professional manner. The Court will not countenance incivility or other behavior during the deposition demonstrating that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or to simply annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent; and
(G) In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1), no deposition may last more than seven hours (exclusive of breaks), except by leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties.
10. MOTIONS GENERALLY. Parties must comply with the following instructions when briefing any motion:
(A) Memoranda of points and authorities filed in support of or in opposition to any motion may not, without leave of the Court, exceed forty-five (45) pages, and reply memoranda may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages, with margins set at one inch and with all text double-spaced (excepting footnotes) and in twelve-point Times New Roman (including footnotes).
(B) Where a party fails to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to a given motion, the Court may treat the motion as conceded. See LCvR 7(b). Similarly, where a party fails to respond to arguments in opposition papers, the Court may treat those specific arguments as conceded. See Phrasavang v. Deutsche Bank, 656 F. Supp. 2d 196, 201 (D.D.C. 2009).

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/06/17 Page 5 of 7
(C) A party may not file a sur-reply without first requesting leave of the Court.
(D) Exhibits shall be properly edited to exclude irrelevant material and to direct the Court’s attention to the pertinent portions thereof.
(E) Each submission shall be accompanied by a table of cases and other authorities cited therein.
(F) Every pleading or paper, regardless of whether it is signed by an attorney or a pro se party, shall contain the name, address, telephone number, and, for an attorney, bar identification number. See LCvR 5.1(e).
11. MOTIONS TO DISMISS. The parties are reminded that a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) presenting matters outside the pleadings may be converted to a motion for summary judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d). If a motion to dismiss presents matters outside the pleadings, all parties must comply fully will the instructions set forth below regarding motions for summary judgment.
12. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Parties must comply with the following instructions when briefing motions for summary judgment and the Court may strike papers not in conformity therewith:
(A) Cases Involving Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Actions.
(i) In accordance with Local Civil Rule 7(h)(2), each motion for summary judgment, and opposition thereto, shall include a statement of facts with references to the administrative record. The parties must furnish precise citations to the portions of the administrative record on which they rely; the Court need not consider materials not specifically identified. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3).
(ii) In accordance with Local Civil Rule 7(n), the parties shall provide the Court with a joint appendix containing copies of those portions of the administrative record that are cited or otherwise relied upon in any memorandum in support of, or in opposition to, a motion for summary judgment.
(B) All Other Cases.
(i) The Court strictly adheres to the dictates of Local Civil Rule 7(h), which requires that each party submitting a motion for summary judgment attach a statement of material facts for which that party contends there is no genuine dispute, with specific citations to those portions of the record upon which the party relies in fashioning the statement. The party opposing the motion must, in turn, submit a statement enumerating all material facts which the party contends are genuinely disputed and thus require trial. See LCvR 7(h)(1). The parties are strongly encouraged to

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/06/17 Page 6 of 7
carefully review Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, 101 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 1996), on the subject of Local Civil Rule 7(h).
(ii) The parties must furnish precise citations to the portions of the record on which they rely; the Court need not consider materials not specifically identified. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3).
(iii) The moving party’s statement of material facts shall be a short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, of all material facts as to which the moving party claims there is no genuine dispute. The statement must contain only one factual assertion in each numbered paragraph.
(iv) The party responding to a statement of material facts must respond to each paragraph with a correspondingly numbered paragraph, indicating whether that paragraph is admitted or denied. If a paragraph is admitted only in part, the party must specifically identify which parts are admitted and which parts are denied.
(v) The Court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its statement of material facts are admitted, unless such facts are controverted in the statement filed in opposition to the motion. See LCvR 7(h)(1).
(vi) The responding party must include any information relevant to its response in its correspondingly numbered paragraph, with specific citations to the record. However, if the responding party has additional facts that are not directly relevant to its response, it must identify such facts in consecutively numbered paragraphs at the end of its responsive statement of facts. If additional factual allegations are made, the opponent must file a responsive statement of its own.
13. MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION. Motions for reconsideration of prior rulings are strongly discouraged. Such motions shall be filed only when the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b), 59(e), and/or 60(b) are met. If such a motion is filed, it shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length. Moreover, the Court will not entertain: (a) motions which simply reassert arguments previously raised and rejected by the Court; or (b) arguments which should have been previously raised, but are being raised for the first time. See Nat’l Trust v. Dep’t of State, 834 F. Supp. 453, 455 (D.D.C. 1995). Motions not in compliance with these instructions may be stricken.
14. COURTESY COPIES. The parties shall deliver one (1) courtesy copy of any submission that is over twenty-five (25) pages in length or that includes more than one (1) exhibit to the Court Security Officer at the loading dock located at Third and C Streets (not the Clerk’s Office or Chambers). Courtesy copies shall be appropriately bound and tabbed for ease of reference.

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 3 Filed 03/06/17 Page 7 of 7
15. SETTLEMENT. The parties are expected to evaluate their respective cases for purposes of settlement. The Court encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution—e.g., mediation or neutral case evaluation. The use of these methods is available at any time, as is a settlement conference before a magistrate judge. If counsel are interested in pursuing these options, they may contact Chambers at any time. If the case settles in whole or in part, counsel shall promptly advise the Court.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

*

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT *

et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

*

Civil Action No. 17-390 (CKK)

*

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

*

et al.

*

*

Defendants.

*

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * **

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COME plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah Shachtman

(collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, to

respectfully move the Court for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. A

Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Proposed Order accompanies this Motion.

The undersigned have consulted with counsel for the Government defendants, who

have indicated they consent to the Plaintiffs’ request. The granting of this Motion shall

not result in the continuance of any hearing, conference or trial.

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 2

Date: May 8, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ ________________________ Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532 Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Brad@MarkZaid.com Mark@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

*

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT *

et al.,

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

*

Civil Action No. 17-390 (CKK)

*

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

*

et al.

*

*

Defendants.

*

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * **

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COME the plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah Shachtman

(collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) to respectfully move the Court for leave to file a

First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs have brought this action under the Freedom of

Information Act (“FOIA”) in order to secure the release of documents improperly

withheld by the defendant agencies Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of

Homeland Security (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). The Plaintiffs now seek

leave of this Court to file a First Amended Complaint to resolve an administrative

exhaustion matter regarding which the Plaintiffs were not aware at the time of the filing

of the original Complaint.

The Defendants, through their counsel, have indicated they consent to the Plaintiffs’

request. The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (“Motion for

Leave”) should be granted and the First Amended Complaint should be accepted.

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 4
ARGUMENT The Plaintiffs are timely seeking leave of this Court to file an amended complaint. The grant or denial of leave lies in the sound discretion of the District Court. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996)(per curiam). The Court must, however, heed Rule 15’s mandate that leave is to be freely given when justice so requires. See Mouzon v. Radiancy, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 60, 64 (D.D.C. 2015). Indeed, “[i]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 182 (1962). Denial of leave to amend therefore constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the court gives sufficient reason, such as futility of amendment, undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, undue prejudice or repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments. Id. The D.C. Circuit has defined “supplemental pleadings” for purposes of Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as setting forth “transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.” Hall v. CIA, 437 F.3d 94, 100 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Rule 15(d) is used to “set forth new facts that update the original pleading or provide the basis for additional relief; to put forward new claims or defenses based on events that took place after the original complaint or answer was filed; [or] to include new parties where subsequent events have made it necessary to do so.” See United States v. Hicks, 283 F.3d 380, 385 (D.C. Cir. 2002). This Court has broad discretion to determine whether to allow supplemental pleadings. See Jones v. Bernanke, 685 F. Supp. 2d 31, 35 (D.D.C. 2010). Courts resolve Rule 15(d) motions under the same standard as they resolve motions to amend under Rule
2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 4
15(a). See Wildearth Guardians v. Kempthorne, 592 F. Supp. 2d 18, 23 (D.D.C. 2008). Leave should be given freely, but not automatically, when justice so requires. See id. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating why leave should not be granted. See Tereshchuk v. Bureau of Prisons, 851 F. Supp. 2d 157, 162 n.6 (D.D.C. 2012), citing LaPrade v. Abramson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86431 at *10 (D.D.C. Nov. 29, 2016).
The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave is rather simple and meant merely to address an inadvertent oversight. Specifically, in Count One of the original Complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that they had submitted a FOIA request to the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (“DOJ OLC”), and that the DOJ OLC had yet to issue a substantive response to the FOIA request. Dkt. #1 at ¶¶12-18.
On March 23, 2017, Government counsel informed the undersigned that DOJ OLC had no record of ever receiving the FOIA request underlying Count One. The undersigned quickly discovered that, due to an inadvertent mistake, the FOIA request had not in fact been submitted. The undersigned apologizes for this oversight, which had not been noticed at the time of the filing of the original Complaint. The undersigned immediately submitted a FOIA request to DOJ OLC, using language identical to that which was supposed to have originally been submitted. That new request serves as the basis for a new Count One, replacing the original Count One. Exhibit “A” at ¶¶12-18 (First Amended Complaint).
Aside from those new details pertaining to Count One, no other modifications or edits have been made to the language from the original Complaint.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-1 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 4
The Plaintiffs respectfully submit that there is no viable basis for denying their Motion for Leave.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint should be granted. Date: May 8, 2017
Respectfully submitted, /s/
________________________ Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532 Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Mark@MarkZaid.com Brad@MarkZaid.com Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
4

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 12
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT

*

1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW

*

Suite 200

*

Washington, D.C. 20036

*

*

and

*

*

Noah Shachtman

*

The Daily Beast

*

555 W 18th Street

*

Fifth Floor

*

New York, NY 10011

*

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

* Civil Action No. 17-390 (CKK)

*

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

*

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

*

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

*

*

and

*

*

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

*

SECURITY

*

STOP-0655

*

245 Murray Lane, SW

*

Washington, D.C. 20528-0655

*

*

Defendants.

*

*

* * * * * * * * * * * *

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et

seq., as amended, for the disclosure of agency records withheld from the plaintiffs The

James Madison Project and Noah Shachtman by the defendants Department of Justice

and Department of Homeland Security (as well as their subordinate entities).

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 12
JURISDICTION 1. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
VENUE 2. Venue is appropriate under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff The James Madison Project (“JMP”) is a non-partisan organization established in 1998 to promote government accountability and the reduction of secrecy, as well as educating the public on issues relating to intelligence and national security. It maintains a website at www.JamesMadisonProject.org. 4. Plaintiff Noah Shachtman (“Shachtman”) currently serves as the Executive Editor of The Daily Beast, and is a representative of the news media. 5. Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (e), and is in possession and/or control of the records requested by the plaintiffs that are the subject of this action. DOJ controls – and consequently serves as the proper party defendant for litigation purposes for – the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”). 6. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (e), and is in possession and/or control of the records requested by the plaintiffs that are the subject of this action. DHS controls – and consequently serves as the proper party defendant for litigation purposes for – the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”), Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 12
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. This lawsuit is brought under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). It seeks the disclosure of records that will shed light on the degree to which (if at all) the defendant federal agencies were consulted both prior and subsequent to the implementation of the so-called “Muslim Ban”. The requested records will also provide the public with clarity concerning the extent to which Members of Congress were consulted both prior and subsequent to the implementation of the “Muslim Ban”. 8. For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-ordertrump.html?mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD7796 3&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes. com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-ban-muslim-executive-order.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017). 9. In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics /donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-reaction/index.html (last accessed
3

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 5 of 12
January 30, 2017). 10. Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal
services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-young-lawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). Despite the issuance of the emergency stays by the different federal judges, reports emerged of CBP officials refusing to comply with the court orders. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles /2017/01/29/trump-s-border-patroldefies-judge-u-s-senator-at-dulles-airport-at-his-first-constitutional-crisis-unfolds.html (last accessed January 31, 2017); http://www.huffingtonpost. com/entry/dulles-airportfeds-violated-court-order_us_588d7274e4b08a14f7e67bcf (last accessed January 31, 2017). On February 4, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security stated that it would stop enforcing the Executive Order. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics /federal-judge-temporarily-halts-trump-travel-ban-nationwide-ag-says/ (last accessed March 2, 2017).
COUNT ONE (DOJ OLC) 11. The plaintiffs, JMP and Shachtman (referred to jointly as “the Requesters”), repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 12. By letter dated March 24, 2017, the Requesters submitted to DOJ OLC a FOIA request. 13. The FOIA request specifically sought copies of records, including crossreferences, memorializing the following:
4

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 6 of 12
1) Any records memorializing discussions between DOJ OLC staff and private staff, Presidential transition staff, and/or White House staff of President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) regarding the legality of (and recommended means of implementing) an Executive Order barring entry of certain categories of foreign nationals based strictly on their nationality, including, but not limited to, individuals who qualify as refugees, U.S. legal permanent residents, and holders of a valid U.S. visa;
2) Any records memorializing discussions between DOJ OLC staff and other Federal agencies regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
3) Any records memorializing discussions among DOJ OLC staff regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
4) Any records memorializing discussions between DOJ OLC staff and Members of Congress (as well as Congressional staff members) regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
5) Any records memorializing final determinations by DOJ OLC staff regarding the extent to which an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1 would apply to U.S. citizens who hold dual citizenship; and
6) Any records memorializing final determinations by DOJ OLC staff regarding the legality of an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1.
14. The Requesters clarified that the scope of information outlined in paragraph 13
should encompass discussions and final determinations that occurred both prior and
subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017.
The Requesters also asked that DOJ OLC use, but not limit itself to, the search terms
“religious test”, “Christian ban”, “Jewish ban”, and “Muslim ban”.
15. The Requesters stated that DOJ OLC could limit the timeframe of its searches
from November 8, 2016, up until the date upon which DOJ OLC began conducting
searches for responsive records. The Requesters further clarified that the scope of DOJ
5

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 7 of 12
OLC’s search should not be limited to DOJ OLC-originated records. 16. In the FOIA request, the Requesters pre-emptively waived any objection to the
redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waived any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
17. In terms of all other third parties who work for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters explained in detail that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of the FOIA request. Relying upon the public interest aspect outlined regarding third party privacy interests, the Requesters stated that they were also seeking a waiver of fees or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees, as well as expedited processing.
18. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from DOJ OLC. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies.
19. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by DOJ OLC of said right.
COUNT TWO (DHS) 20. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 21. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to DHS a FOIA request.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 8 of 12
22. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 17, as the scope of the FOIA request submitted to DHS, as well as the issues of third party privacy interests, fee waiver and expedited processing, were addressed in identical fashion in the DOJ OLC request.
23. By letter dated February 6, 2017, DHS acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it Request Number 2017-HQFO-00302. In its letter, DHS stated that it was granting a fee waiver and expedited processing.
24. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from DHS. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies.
25. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by DHS of said right.
COUNT THREE (TSA) 26. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 27. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to TSA a FOIA request. 28. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 17, as the scope of the FOIA request submitted to TSA, as well as the issues of third party privacy interests, fee waiver and expedited processing, were addressed in identical fashion in the DOJ OLC request. 29. By letter dated February 7, 2017, TSA acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it Request Number 2017-HQFO-00326. In its letter, TSA stated that it was granting a fee waiver.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 9 of 12
30. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from TSA. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies.
31. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by TSA of said right.
COUNT FOUR (CBP) 32. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 33. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to CBP a FOIA request. 34. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 17, as the scope of the FOIA request submitted to CBP, as well as the issues of third party privacy interests, fee waiver and expedited processing, were addressed in identical fashion in the DOJ OLC request. 35. By letter dated February 22, 2017, CBP acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it Request Number 2017-HQFO-00426. In its letter, CBP stated that it was granting a fee waiver and expedited processing. 36. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from CBP. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies. 37. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by CBP of said right.
COUNT FIVE (ICE) 38. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 10 of 12
39. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to ICE a FOIA request. 40. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 17, as the scope of the FOIA request submitted to ICE, as well as the issues of third party privacy interests, fee waiver and expedited processing, were addressed in identical fashion in the DOJ OLC request. 41. By letter dated February 13, 2017, ICE acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it Request Number 2017-HQFO-00334. In its letter, ICE stated that it was granting a fee waiver and expedited processing. 42. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from ICE. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies. 43. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by ICE of said right.
COUNT SIX (USCIS) 44. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 45. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to USCIS a FOIA request. 46. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 17, as the scope of the FOIA request submitted to USCIS, as well as the issues of third party privacy interests, fee waiver and expedited processing, were addressed in identical fashion in the DOJ OLC request.
9

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 11 of 12
47. By letter dated February 2, 2017, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it Request Number 2017-HQFO-00282. In its letter, USCIS stated that it was granting a fee waiver and expedited processing.
48. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from USCIS. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies.
49. The Requesters have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the information they seek, and there is no legal basis for the denial by USCIS of said right.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah Shachtman pray that this Court:
(1) Order the defendant federal agencies to disclose the requested records in their entirety and make copies promptly available to the plaintiffs;
(2) Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees as provided in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d);
(4) expedite this action in every way pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657 (a); and (5) grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
10

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 12 of 12

Date: May 8, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ __________________________ Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532 Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Brad@MarkZaid.com Mark@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 6-3 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al.
Defendants.
* * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER

Civil Action No. 17-390 (CKK) * * * **

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint,

and the entire record herein, it is this ______ day of _________________ 2017, hereby

ORDERED, that plaintiffs’ Motion is granted; and further

ORDERED, that plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is hereby deemed filed as of

the date of this Order.

_________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT and )

NOAH SHACHTMAN,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 1:17-cv-00390-CKK

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

ANSWER

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the United States Department of

Homeland Security (“DHS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby answer the numbered

paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 7 (“Complaint”), in the above-

captioned action. The initial, unnumbered paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of

their Complaint, to which no response is required.

1. This paragraph asserts legal conclusions regarding jurisdiction, to which no

response is required.

2. This paragraph asserts legal conclusions regarding venue, to which no response is

required.

3. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations in this paragraph.

4. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations in this paragraph.

– 1 –

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8 Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 9
5. Defendant DOJ admits that DOJ is an agency of the United States Government and that the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) is a component of DOJ. The remainder of this paragraph sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DOJ denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
6. Defendant DHS admits that DHS is an agency of the United States Government and that the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) are components of DHS. The remainder of this paragraph sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DHS denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
7. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their Complaint and reasons for filing this action, to which no response is required.
8. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of news reports and does not set forth a claim for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required.
9. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of news reports and does not set forth a claim for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required.
10. This paragraph consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of news reports and does not set forth a claim for relief or aver facts in support of a claim to which a response is required.
11. This paragraph repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants refer the Court to their responses to paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint.
12. Defendant DOJ admits the allegations in this paragraph.
– 2 –

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8 Filed 05/24/17 Page 3 of 9
13. This paragraphs consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request to OLC, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DOJ avers that a true and correct copy of the request received by OLC is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and respectfully refers the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
14. This paragraphs consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request to OLC, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DOJ avers that a true and correct copy of the request received by OLC is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and respectfully refers the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
15. This paragraphs consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request to OLC, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DOJ avers that a true and correct copy of the request received by OLC is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and respectfully refers the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
16. This paragraphs consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request to OLC, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DOJ avers that a true and correct copy of the request received by OLC is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and respectfully refers the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
17. This paragraphs consist of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request to OLC, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DOJ avers that a true and correct copy of the request received by OLC, and date-
– 3 –

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8 Filed 05/24/17 Page 4 of 9
stamped by OLC to mark its receipt, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and respectfully refers the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents.
18. Defendant DOJ admits the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence of this paragraph asserts legal conclusions regarding exhaustion, to which no response is required.
19. This paragraph sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DOJ denies the allegations in this paragraph.
20. This paragraph repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants refer the Court to their responses to paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint.
21. Defendant DHS admits the allegations in this paragraph. 22. This paragraph repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 13 through 17 of the Complaint and consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request to DHS, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DHS avers that a true and correct copy of the request received by DHS is attached hereto as Exhibit 2, and respectfully refers the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents. 23. Defendant DHS admits the allegations in this paragraph. 24. Defendant DHS admits the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence of this paragraph asserts legal conclusions regarding exhaustion, to which no response is required.
– 4 –

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8 Filed 05/24/17 Page 5 of 9
25. This paragraph sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DHS denies the allegations in this paragraph.
26. This paragraph repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants refer the Court to their responses to paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint.
27. Defendant DHS admits the allegations in this paragraph. 28. This paragraph repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 13 through 17 of the Complaint and consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request to TSA, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DHS avers that a true and correct copy of the request received by TSA is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and respectfully refers the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents. 29. Defendant DHS denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph, and avers that TSA acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request in a letter dated February 2, 2017, and assigned it Request Number 2017-TSFO-00135. Defendant DHS admits the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph. 30. Defendant DHS denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph, and avers that TSA released records to Plaintiffs on May 24, 2017. The second sentence of this paragraph asserts legal conclusions regarding exhaustion, to which no response is required. 31. This paragraph sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DHS denies the allegations in this paragraph.
– 5 –

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8 Filed 05/24/17 Page 6 of 9
32. This paragraph repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants refer the Court to their responses to paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint.
33. Defendant DHS admits the allegations in this paragraph. 34. This paragraph repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 13 through 17 of the Complaint and consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request to CBP, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DHS avers that a true and correct copy of the request received by CBP is attached hereto as Exhibit 4, and respectfully refers the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents. 35. Defendant DHS denies the allegations in this paragraph. Defendant DHS avers that CBP acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request by letter dated February 8, 2017, and assigned it Request Number CBP-2017-027279. Defendant DHS further avers that CBP’s letter dated February 8, 2017, stated that CBP was transferring the request to the DHS Privacy Office for processing and direct response to Plaintiffs’ counsel. 36. Defendant DHS denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph, and avers that CBP responded to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request by referring it to the DHS Privacy Office for processing and direct response to Plaintiffs’ counsel. The second sentence of this paragraph asserts legal conclusions regarding exhaustion, to which no response is required. 37. This paragraph sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DHS denies the allegations in this paragraph.
– 6 –

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8 Filed 05/24/17 Page 7 of 9
38. This paragraph repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants refer the Court to their responses to paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint.
39. Defendant DHS admits the allegations in this paragraph. 40. This paragraph repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 13 through 17 of the Complaint and consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request to ICE, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DHS avers that a true and correct copy of the request received by ICE is attached hereto as Exhibit 5, and respectfully refers the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents. 41. Defendant DHS denies the allegations in this paragraph, and avers that ICE acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request by letter dated March 28, 2017, and assigned it Request Number 2017-ICFO-14622. Defendant DHS further avers that ICE’s letter dated March 28, 2017, stated that ICE was referring the request to the Deputy FOIA Officer for DHS for processing and direct response to Plaintiffs’ counsel. 42. Defendant DHS denies the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph, and avers that ICE responded to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request by referring it to the Deputy FOIA Officer for DHS for processing and direct response to Plaintiffs’ counsel. The second sentence of this paragraph asserts legal conclusions regarding exhaustion, to which no response is required. 43. This paragraph sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DHS denies the allegations in this paragraph.
– 7 –

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8 Filed 05/24/17 Page 8 of 9
44. This paragraph repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants refer the Court to their responses to paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Complaint.
45. Defendant DHS admits the allegations in this paragraph. 46. This paragraph repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 13 through 17 of the Complaint and consists of Plaintiffs’ characterization of their FOIA request to USCIS, which does not require a response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DHS avers that a true and correct copy of the request received by USCIS is attached hereto as Exhibit 6, and respectfully refers the Court to the request for a full and accurate statement of its contents. 47. Defendant DHS admits that USCIS acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request on February 2, 2017, and that USCIS granted Plaintiffs’ fee-waiver and expeditedprocessing requests. Defendant DHS denies that USCIS assigned Plaintiffs’ FOIA request Request Number 2017-HQFO-00282, and avers that USCIS assigned it Request Number COW2017000101. 48. Defendant DHS admits the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence of this paragraph asserts legal conclusions regarding exhaustion, to which no response is required. 49. This paragraph sets forth legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant DHS denies the allegations in this paragraph.
The remaining paragraph of the Complaint contains Plaintiffs’ requested relief, to which no response is required.
Defendants hereby deny all allegations of the Complaint not otherwise specifically answered above.
– 8 –

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8 Filed 05/24/17 Page 9 of 9

Dated: May 24, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS Trial Attorney (DC Bar No. 998094) United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

– 9 –

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-1 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 7
Exhibit 1
OLC Request

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-1 Filed 05/24/171P7a-g1e724ofR7 ec'd 3/24/17
The James Madison Project 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 498-0011 (202) 330-5610 fax

E-Mail: FOIA@JamesMadisonProject.org http://www.JamesMadisonProject.org

March 24, 2017

VIA E-MAIL

Melissa Golden FOIA Specialist Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 5511 Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Re: FOIA Request – Immigration Executive Order

Dear Ms. Golden:

This is a request on behalf of The James Madison Project (“JMP”) and The Daily Beast’s Executive Editor, Noah Shachtman (“Mr. Shachtman”)(hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. This request seeks copies of Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (“DOJ OLC”) records, including crossreferences, memorializing the following:

1) Any records memorializing discussions between DOJ OLC staff and private staff, Presidential transition staff, and/or White House staff of President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) regarding the legality of (and recommended means of implementing) an Executive Order barring entry of certain categories of foreign nationals based strictly on their nationality, including, but not limited to, individuals who qualify as refugees, U.S. legal permanent residents, and holders of a valid U.S. visa;

2) Any records memorializing discussions between DOJ OLC staff and other Federal agencies regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;

______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-1 Filed 05/24/17 Page 3 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
3) Any records memorializing discussions among DOJ OLC staff regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
4) Any records memorializing discussions between DOJ OLC staff and Members of Congress (as well as Congressional staff members) regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
5) Any records memorializing final determinations by DOJ OLC staff regarding the extent to which an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1 would apply to U.S. citizens who hold dual citizenship; and
6) Any records memorializing final determinations by DOJ OLC staff regarding the legality of an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1.
For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?mtrref=www. nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD77963&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-banmuslim-executive-order.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-reaction /index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Media reports quickly emerged revealing how little proactive coordination or planning had gone into vetting the legality of the Executive Order, let alone preparing to implement its requirements. The Department of Homeland Security only learned of the details as the Executive Order itself was being signed, and conflicting reports emerged about the extent to which DOJ OLC had conducted a standard legal review and issued approval. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/ 28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). News reports also indicate that individual Congressional staff members (without the knowledge of their respective Congressional employers) had assisted the Trump transition team in early drafting of
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-1 Filed 05/24/17 Page 4 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
the Executive Order. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order234392 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
To be clear, the scope of the six categories of information should encompass discussions and final determinations that occurred both prior and subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017. The Requesters ask that DOJ OLC uses, but does not limit itself to, the search terms “religious test”, “Christian ban”, “Jewish ban”, and “Muslim ban”.
DOJ OLC can limit the timeframe of its search from November 8, 2016, up until the date the agency begins conducting searches for records responsive to this request. The scope of the searches should not be limited to DOJ OLC-originated records and should be construed to include records that are currently in the possession of a U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management.
The Requesters are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waive any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002)(setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).
The work performed by these U.S. Government third parties (whether they be Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, evaluate the relevant legal and policy factors that would be implicated by an Executive Order seeking to severely restrict entry for entire categories of individuals based solely on their nationality and notwithstanding vetting that had already been conducted by the U.S. Government. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly by revealing official DOJ OLC discussions about and determinations regarding President Trump’s controversial Executive Order, it would be
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-1 Filed 05/24/17 Page 5 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information indexed to their name.1
We are also requesting a waiver of or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees. At a minimum, both JMP and Mr. Shachtman qualify – in their own respective right – for designation as representatives of the news media.
JMP is a non-partisan organization dedicating to promoting government accountability and the reduction of secrecy. http://jamesmadisonproject.org/ (last accessed August 7, 2015). Mr. Shachtman is the Executive Editor of The Daily Beast, a New York-based media outlet with an estimated 40 million readers per month. http://www.thedailybeast.com/company/about-us.html (last accessed August 10, 2015).
The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles published by The Daily Beast. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii),
the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.
The Requesters can demonstrate their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The Daily Beast maintains the ability to produce news articles explaining the content of any responsive records received as part of this request. In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for authorization.
There is considerable public interest in disclosure of the requested records. Protests spread across the country on January 28, 2017, and January 29, 2017, and at numerous different U.S. airports. http://mashable.com/2017/01/28/airport-protests-muslim-ban/#lEiZInn4eOqa (last accessed January 30, 2017). Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-young-lawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). In the aftermath of the court rulings and protests, revisions have already been made to exclude application of the entry restrictions to U.S. permanent legal
1 We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might ultimately be appropriate as DOJ OLC processes the responsive records.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-1 Filed 05/24/17 Page 6 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
residents. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/priebus-says-green-card-holdersexempt-from-entry-ban.html?mid=twitter_nymag (last accessed January 30, 2017). At least two lawsuits have already been filed challenging the legality of the Executive Order in and of itself, https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-state-washington-files-suit-against-trump-travel-202035930. html (last accessed January 30, 2017); https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/14069cair-files-federal-suit-challenging-constitutionality-of-trump-s-muslim-ban-executive-order.html (last accessed January 30, 2017), and acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired by President Trump after she publicly stated that DOJ would not defend the Executive Order in court. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/meet-the-acting-attorney-generalfired-by-trump-and-accused-of-betraying-the-justice-department/2017/01/30/05d4478c-e75011e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.093d0ec54fcc (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Finally, and again in reliance upon the same public interest reasons outlined above, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
The records responsive to this FOIA request clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has an urgent and active need to know. The bureaucratic dysfunction surrounding the implementation of the Executive Order is effectively a case study on how not to prepare for a major policy change. The impact of the Executive Order continues to this day.
If DOJ OLC denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible. Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif. Please provide soft-copy records by email or on a CD if email is not feasible. However, the Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance that such a fee is required, the Requesters will accept a paper copy of responsive records.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 907-7945 or via e-mail at brad@jamesmadisonproject.org.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-1 Filed 05/24/17 Page 7 of 7 The James Madison Project
______________________________________________________________________________ Sincerely, /s/ Bradley P. Moss Deputy Executive Director
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-2 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 6
Exhibit 2
DHS Request

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-2 Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 6

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

Bradley P. Moss, Esq. FOIA "Mark Zaid" FOIA request Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:10:34 PM

Karen Neuman FOIA Officer Department of Homeland Security Headquarters and Privacy Officer STOP-0655 245 Murray Lane, SW Washington, D.C. 20528-0655

Re: FOIA Request – Immigration Executive Order

Dear Ms. Neuman:

This is a request on behalf of The James Madison Project (“JMP”) and The Daily Beast’s Executive Editor, Noah Shachtman (“Mr. Shachtman”)(hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. This request seeks copies of Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) records, including cross-references, memorializing the following:

1) Any records memorializing discussions between DHS staff and private staff, Presidential transition staff, and/or White House staff of President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) regarding the legality of (and recommended means of implementing) an Executive Order barring entry of certain categories of foreign nationals based strictly on their nationality, including, but not limited to, individuals who qualify as refugees, U.S. legal permanent residents, and holders of a valid U.S. visa;

2) Any records memorializing discussions between DHS staff and other Federal agencies regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;

3) Any records memorializing discussions among DHS staff regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;

4) Any records memorializing discussions between DHS staff and Members of Congress (as well as Congressional staff members) regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;

5) Any records memorializing final determinations by DHS staff regarding the extent to which an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1 would apply to U.S. citizens who hold dual citizenship; and

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-2 Filed 05/24/17 Page 3 of 6
6) Any records memorializing final determinations by DHS staff regarding the legality of an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1.
For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?mtrref=www. nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD77963&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-ban-muslim-executiveorder.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-reaction /index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Media reports quickly emerged revealing how little proactive coordination or planning had gone into vetting the legality of the Executive Order, let alone preparing to implement its requirements. The Department of Homeland Security only learned of the details as the Executive Order itself was being signed, and conflicting reports emerged about the extent to which DOJ OLC had conducted a standard legal review and issued approval. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/ 28/politics/donald-trumptravel-ban/index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). News reports also indicate that individual Congressional staff members (without the knowledge of their respective Congressional employers) had assisted the Trump transition team in early drafting of the Executive Order. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order-234392 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
To be clear, the scope of the six categories of information should encompass discussions and final determinations that occurred both prior and subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017. The Requesters ask that DHS uses, but does not limit itself to, the search terms “religious test”, “Christian ban”, “Jewish ban”, and “Muslim ban”.
DHS can limit the timeframe of its search from November 8, 2016, up until the date the agency begins conducting searches for records responsive to this request. The scope of the searches should not be limited to DHS-originated records and should be construed to include records that are currently in the possession of a U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management.
The Requesters are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waive any objection to redactions of the names of any

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-2 Filed 05/24/17 Page 4 of 6
U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002)(setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).
The work performed by these U.S. Government third parties (whether they be Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, evaluate the relevant legal and policy factors that would be implicated by an Executive Order seeking to severely restrict entry for entire categories of individuals based solely on their nationality and notwithstanding vetting that had already been conducted by the U.S. Government. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly by revealing official DHS discussions about and determinations regarding President Trump’s controversial Executive Order, it would be reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in
[1] disclosure of the information indexed to their name.
We are also requesting a waiver of or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees. At a minimum, both JMP and Mr. Shachtman qualify – in their own respective right – for designation as representatives of the news media.
JMP is a non-partisan organization dedicating to promoting government accountability and the reduction of secrecy. http://jamesmadisonproject.org/ (last accessed August 7, 2015). Mr. Shachtman is the Executive Editor of The Daily Beast, a New York-based media outlet with an estimated 40 million readers per month. http://www.thedailybeast.com/company/about-us.html (last accessed August 10, 2015).
The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles published by The Daily Beast. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii),
the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-2 Filed 05/24/17 Page 5 of 6
The Requesters can demonstrate their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The Daily Beast maintains the ability to produce news articles explaining the content of any responsive records received as part of this request. In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for authorization.
There is considerable public interest in disclosure of the requested records. Protests spread across the country on January 28, 2017, and January 29, 2017, and at numerous different U.S. airports. http://mashable.com/2017/01/28/airport-protests-muslim-ban/#lEiZInn4eOqa (last accessed January 30, 2017). Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-young-lawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). In the aftermath of the court rulings and protests, revisions have already been made to exclude application of the entry restrictions to U.S. permanent legal residents. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/priebus-says-green-card-holders-exempt-from-entryban.html?mid=twitter_nymag (last accessed January 30, 2017). At least two lawsuits have already been filed challenging the legality of the Executive Order in and of itself, https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-state-washington-files-suit-against-trump-travel-202035930. html (last accessed January 30, 2017); https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/14069-cair-filesfederal-suit-challenging-constitutionality-of-trump-s-muslim-ban-executive-order.html (last accessed January 30, 2017), and acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired by President Trump after she publicly stated that DOJ would not defend the Executive Order in court. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/meet-the-acting-attorney-general-firedby-trump-and-accused-of-betraying-the-justice-department/2017/01/30/05d4478c-e750-11e6-80c230e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.093d0ec54fcc (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Finally, and again in reliance upon the same public interest reasons outlined above, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
The records responsive to this FOIA request clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has an urgent and active need to know. The bureaucratic dysfunction surrounding the implementation of the Executive Order is effectively a case study on how not to prepare for a major policy change. The impact of the Executive Order continues to this day.
If DHS denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible. Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif. Please provide soft-copy records by email or on a CD if email is not feasible. However, the Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-2 Filed 05/24/17 Page 6 of 6
that such a fee is required, the Requesters will accept a paper copy of responsive records.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 907-7945 or via e-mail at brad@jamesmadisonproject.org.
Sincerely,
/s/
Bradley P. Moss Deputy Executive Director
This electronic mail (e-mail) transmission is meant solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. It contains confidential information that may also be legally privileged. Any copying, dissemination or distribution of the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the addressee or his or her agent for such purposes is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and purge the original and all copies thereof. Thank you. Bradley Prescott Moss, Esq. Partner Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 C: (202) 907-7945 F: (202) 558-4432
[1] We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might
ultimately be appropriate as DHS processes the responsive records.

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-3 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 7
Exhibit 3
TSA Request

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-3 Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 7
The James Madison Project 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 498-0011 (202) 330-5610 fax

E-Mail: FOIA@JamesMadisonProject.org http://www.JamesMadisonProject.org

January 31, 2017

VIA E-MAIL

Regina McCoy FOIA Officer Transportation Security Administration 11th Floor, East Tower, TSA-20 601 S. 12th Street Arlington, VA 22202-4220

Re: FOIA Request – Immigration Executive Order

Dear Ms. McCoy:

This is a request on behalf of The James Madison Project (“JMP”) and The Daily Beast’s Executive Editor, Noah Shachtman (“Mr. Shachtman”)(hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. This request seeks copies of Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) records, including cross-references, memorializing the following:

1) Any records memorializing discussions between TSA staff and private staff, Presidential transition staff, and/or White House staff of President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) regarding the legality of (and recommended means of implementing) an Executive Order barring entry of certain categories of foreign nationals based strictly on their nationality, including, but not limited to, individuals who qualify as refugees, U.S. legal permanent residents, and holders of a valid U.S. visa;

2) Any records memorializing discussions between TSA staff and other Federal agencies regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;

______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-3 Filed 05/24/17 Page 3 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
3) Any records memorializing discussions among TSA staff regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
4) Any records memorializing discussions between TSA staff and Members of Congress (as well as Congressional staff members) regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
5) Any records memorializing final determinations by TSA staff regarding the extent to which an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1 would apply to U.S. citizens who hold dual citizenship; and
6) Any records memorializing final determinations by TSA staff regarding the legality of an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1.
For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?mtrref=www. nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD77963&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-banmuslim-executive-order.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-reaction /index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Media reports quickly emerged revealing how little proactive coordination or planning had gone into vetting the legality of the Executive Order, let alone preparing to implement its requirements. The Department of Homeland Security only learned of the details as the Executive Order itself was being signed, and conflicting reports emerged about the extent to which DOJ OLC had conducted a standard legal review and issued approval. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/ 28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). News reports also indicate that individual Congressional staff members (without the knowledge of their respective Congressional employers) had assisted the Trump transition team in early drafting of
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-3 Filed 05/24/17 Page 4 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
the Executive Order. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order234392 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
To be clear, the scope of the six categories of information should encompass discussions and final determinations that occurred both prior and subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017. The Requesters ask that TSA uses, but does not limit itself to, the search terms “religious test”, “Christian ban”, “Jewish ban”, and “Muslim ban”.
TSA can limit the timeframe of its search from November 8, 2016, up until the date the agency begins conducting searches for records responsive to this request. The scope of the searches should not be limited to TSA-originated records and should be construed to include records that are currently in the possession of a U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management.
The Requesters are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waive any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002)(setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).
The work performed by these U.S. Government third parties (whether they be Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, evaluate the relevant legal and policy factors that would be implicated by an Executive Order seeking to severely restrict entry for entire categories of individuals based solely on their nationality and notwithstanding vetting that had already been conducted by the U.S. Government. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly by revealing official TSA discussions about and determinations regarding President Trump’s controversial Executive Order, it would be
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-3 Filed 05/24/17 Page 5 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information indexed to their name.1
We are also requesting a waiver of or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees. At a minimum, both JMP and Mr. Shachtman qualify – in their own respective right – for designation as representatives of the news media.
JMP is a non-partisan organization dedicating to promoting government accountability and the reduction of secrecy. http://jamesmadisonproject.org/ (last accessed August 7, 2015). Mr. Shachtman is the Executive Editor of The Daily Beast, a New York-based media outlet with an estimated 40 million readers per month. http://www.thedailybeast.com/company/about-us.html (last accessed August 10, 2015).
The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles published by The Daily Beast. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii),
the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.
The Requesters can demonstrate their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The Daily Beast maintains the ability to produce news articles explaining the content of any responsive records received as part of this request. In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for authorization.
There is considerable public interest in disclosure of the requested records. Protests spread across the country on January 28, 2017, and January 29, 2017, and at numerous different U.S. airports. http://mashable.com/2017/01/28/airport-protests-muslim-ban/#lEiZInn4eOqa (last accessed January 30, 2017). Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-young-lawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). In the aftermath of the court rulings and protests, revisions have already been made to exclude application of the entry restrictions to U.S. permanent legal
1 We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might ultimately be appropriate as TSA processes the responsive records.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-3 Filed 05/24/17 Page 6 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
residents. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/priebus-says-green-card-holdersexempt-from-entry-ban.html?mid=twitter_nymag (last accessed January 30, 2017). At least two lawsuits have already been filed challenging the legality of the Executive Order in and of itself, https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-state-washington-files-suit-against-trump-travel-202035930. html (last accessed January 30, 2017); https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/14069cair-files-federal-suit-challenging-constitutionality-of-trump-s-muslim-ban-executive-order.html (last accessed January 30, 2017), and acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired by President Trump after she publicly stated that DOJ would not defend the Executive Order in court. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/meet-the-acting-attorney-generalfired-by-trump-and-accused-of-betraying-the-justice-department/2017/01/30/05d4478c-e75011e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.093d0ec54fcc (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Finally, and again in reliance upon the same public interest reasons outlined above, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
The records responsive to this FOIA request clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has an urgent and active need to know. The bureaucratic dysfunction surrounding the implementation of the Executive Order is effectively a case study on how not to prepare for a major policy change. The impact of the Executive Order continues to this day.
If TSA denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible. Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif. Please provide soft-copy records by email or on a CD if email is not feasible. However, the Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance that such a fee is required, the Requesters will accept a paper copy of responsive records.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 907-7945 or via e-mail at brad@jamesmadisonproject.org.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-3 Filed 05/24/17 Page 7 of 7 The James Madison Project
______________________________________________________________________________ Sincerely, /s/ Bradley P. Moss Deputy Executive Director
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-4 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 7
Exhibit 4
CBP Request

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-4 Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 7
The James Madison Project 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 498-0011 (202) 330-5610 fax

E-Mail: FOIA@JamesMadisonProject.org http://www.JamesMadisonProject.org

January 31, 2017

VIA ONLINE PORTAL

Sabrina Burroughs FOIA Officer U.S. Customs and Border Protection MS 1181 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20229-1181

Re: FOIA Request – Immigration Executive Order

Dear Ms. Burroughs:

This is a request on behalf of The James Madison Project (“JMP”) and The Daily Beast’s Executive Editor, Noah Shachtman (“Mr. Shachtman”)(hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. This request seeks copies of Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) records, including cross-references, memorializing the following:

1) Any records memorializing discussions between CBP staff and private staff, Presidential transition staff, and/or White House staff of President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) regarding the legality of (and recommended means of implementing) an Executive Order barring entry of certain categories of foreign nationals based strictly on their nationality, including, but not limited to, individuals who qualify as refugees, U.S. legal permanent residents, and holders of a valid U.S. visa;

2) Any records memorializing discussions between CBP staff and other Federal agencies regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;

______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-4 Filed 05/24/17 Page 3 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
3) Any records memorializing discussions among CBP staff regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
4) Any records memorializing discussions between CBP staff and Members of Congress (as well as Congressional staff members) regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
5) Any records memorializing final determinations by CBP staff regarding the extent to which an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1 would apply to U.S. citizens who hold dual citizenship; and
6) Any records memorializing final determinations by CBP staff regarding the legality of an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1.
For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?mtrref=www. nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD77963&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-banmuslim-executive-order.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-reaction /index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Media reports quickly emerged revealing how little proactive coordination or planning had gone into vetting the legality of the Executive Order, let alone preparing to implement its requirements. The Department of Homeland Security only learned of the details as the Executive Order itself was being signed, and conflicting reports emerged about the extent to which DOJ OLC had conducted a standard legal review and issued approval. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/ 28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). News reports also indicate that individual Congressional staff members (without the knowledge of their respective Congressional employers) had assisted the Trump transition team in early drafting of
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-4 Filed 05/24/17 Page 4 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
the Executive Order. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order234392 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
To be clear, the scope of the six categories of information should encompass discussions and final determinations that occurred both prior and subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017. The Requesters ask that CBP uses, but does not limit itself to, the search terms “religious test”, “Christian ban”, “Jewish ban”, and “Muslim ban”.
CBP can limit the timeframe of its search from November 8, 2016, up until the date the agency begins conducting searches for records responsive to this request. The scope of the searches should not be limited to CBP-originated records and should be construed to include records that are currently in the possession of a U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management.
The Requesters are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waive any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002)(setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).
The work performed by these U.S. Government third parties (whether they be Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, evaluate the relevant legal and policy factors that would be implicated by an Executive Order seeking to severely restrict entry for entire categories of individuals based solely on their nationality and notwithstanding vetting that had already been conducted by the U.S. Government. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly by revealing official CBP discussions about and determinations regarding President Trump’s controversial Executive Order, it would be
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-4 Filed 05/24/17 Page 5 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information indexed to their name.1
We are also requesting a waiver of or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees. At a minimum, both JMP and Mr. Shachtman qualify – in their own respective right – for designation as representatives of the news media.
JMP is a non-partisan organization dedicating to promoting government accountability and the reduction of secrecy. http://jamesmadisonproject.org/ (last accessed August 7, 2015). Mr. Shachtman is the Executive Editor of The Daily Beast, a New York-based media outlet with an estimated 40 million readers per month. http://www.thedailybeast.com/company/about-us.html (last accessed August 10, 2015).
The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles published by The Daily Beast. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii),
the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.
The Requesters can demonstrate their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The Daily Beast maintains the ability to produce news articles explaining the content of any responsive records received as part of this request. In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for authorization.
There is considerable public interest in disclosure of the requested records. Protests spread across the country on January 28, 2017, and January 29, 2017, and at numerous different U.S. airports. http://mashable.com/2017/01/28/airport-protests-muslim-ban/#lEiZInn4eOqa (last accessed January 30, 2017). Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-young-lawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). In the aftermath of the court rulings and protests, revisions have already been made to exclude application of the entry restrictions to U.S. permanent legal
1 We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might ultimately be appropriate as CBP processes the responsive records.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-4 Filed 05/24/17 Page 6 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
residents. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/priebus-says-green-card-holdersexempt-from-entry-ban.html?mid=twitter_nymag (last accessed January 30, 2017). At least two lawsuits have already been filed challenging the legality of the Executive Order in and of itself, https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-state-washington-files-suit-against-trump-travel-202035930. html (last accessed January 30, 2017); https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/14069cair-files-federal-suit-challenging-constitutionality-of-trump-s-muslim-ban-executive-order.html (last accessed January 30, 2017), and acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired by President Trump after she publicly stated that DOJ would not defend the Executive Order in court. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/meet-the-acting-attorney-generalfired-by-trump-and-accused-of-betraying-the-justice-department/2017/01/30/05d4478c-e75011e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.093d0ec54fcc (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Finally, and again in reliance upon the same public interest reasons outlined above, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
The records responsive to this FOIA request clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has an urgent and active need to know. The bureaucratic dysfunction surrounding the implementation of the Executive Order is effectively a case study on how not to prepare for a major policy change. The impact of the Executive Order continues to this day.
If CBP denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible. Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif. Please provide soft-copy records by email or on a CD if email is not feasible. However, the Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance that such a fee is required, the Requesters will accept a paper copy of responsive records.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 907-7945 or via e-mail at brad@jamesmadisonproject.org.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-4 Filed 05/24/17 Page 7 of 7 The James Madison Project
______________________________________________________________________________ Sincerely, /s/ Bradley P. Moss Deputy Executive Director
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-5 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 7
Exhibit 5
ICE Request

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-5 Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 7
The James Madison Project 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 498-0011 (202) 330-5610 fax

E-Mail: FOIA@JamesMadisonProject.org http://www.JamesMadisonProject.org

January 31, 2017

VIA E-MAIL

Catrina Pavlick-Keenan FOIA Officer U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Mail Stop 5009 500 12th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20536-5009

Re: FOIA Request – Immigration Executive Order

Dear Ms. Keenan:

This is a request on behalf of The James Madison Project (“JMP”) and The Daily Beast’s Executive Editor, Noah Shachtman (“Mr. Shachtman”)(hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. This request seeks copies of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) records, including cross-references, memorializing the following:

1) Any records memorializing discussions between ICE staff and private staff, Presidential transition staff, and/or White House staff of President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) regarding the legality of (and recommended means of implementing) an Executive Order barring entry of certain categories of foreign nationals based strictly on their nationality, including, but not limited to, individuals who qualify as refugees, U.S. legal permanent residents, and holders of a valid U.S. visa;

2) Any records memorializing discussions between ICE staff and other Federal agencies regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;

______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-5 Filed 05/24/17 Page 3 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
3) Any records memorializing discussions among ICE staff regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
4) Any records memorializing discussions between ICE staff and Members of Congress (as well as Congressional staff members) regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
5) Any records memorializing final determinations by ICE staff regarding the extent to which an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1 would apply to U.S. citizens who hold dual citizenship; and
6) Any records memorializing final determinations by ICE staff regarding the legality of an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1.
For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?mtrref=www. nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD77963&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-banmuslim-executive-order.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-reaction /index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Media reports quickly emerged revealing how little proactive coordination or planning had gone into vetting the legality of the Executive Order, let alone preparing to implement its requirements. The Department of Homeland Security only learned of the details as the Executive Order itself was being signed, and conflicting reports emerged about the extent to which DOJ OLC had conducted a standard legal review and issued approval. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/ 28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). News reports also indicate that individual Congressional staff members (without the knowledge of their respective Congressional employers) had assisted the Trump transition team in early drafting of
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-5 Filed 05/24/17 Page 4 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
the Executive Order. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order234392 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
To be clear, the scope of the six categories of information should encompass discussions and final determinations that occurred both prior and subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017. The Requesters ask that ICE uses, but does not limit itself to, the search terms “religious test”, “Christian ban”, “Jewish ban”, and “Muslim ban”.
ICE can limit the timeframe of its search from November 8, 2016, up until the date the agency begins conducting searches for records responsive to this request. The scope of the searches should not be limited to ICE-originated records and should be construed to include records that are currently in the possession of a U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management.
The Requesters are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waive any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002)(setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).
The work performed by these U.S. Government third parties (whether they be Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, evaluate the relevant legal and policy factors that would be implicated by an Executive Order seeking to severely restrict entry for entire categories of individuals based solely on their nationality and notwithstanding vetting that had already been conducted by the U.S. Government. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly by revealing official ICE discussions about and determinations regarding President Trump’s controversial Executive Order, it would be
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-5 Filed 05/24/17 Page 5 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information indexed to their name.1
We are also requesting a waiver of or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees. At a minimum, both JMP and Mr. Shachtman qualify – in their own respective right – for designation as representatives of the news media.
JMP is a non-partisan organization dedicating to promoting government accountability and the reduction of secrecy. http://jamesmadisonproject.org/ (last accessed August 7, 2015). Mr. Shachtman is the Executive Editor of The Daily Beast, a New York-based media outlet with an estimated 40 million readers per month. http://www.thedailybeast.com/company/about-us.html (last accessed August 10, 2015).
The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles published by The Daily Beast. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii),
the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.
The Requesters can demonstrate their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The Daily Beast maintains the ability to produce news articles explaining the content of any responsive records received as part of this request. In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for authorization.
There is considerable public interest in disclosure of the requested records. Protests spread across the country on January 28, 2017, and January 29, 2017, and at numerous different U.S. airports. http://mashable.com/2017/01/28/airport-protests-muslim-ban/#lEiZInn4eOqa (last accessed January 30, 2017). Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-young-lawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). In the aftermath of the court rulings and protests, revisions have already been made to exclude application of the entry restrictions to U.S. permanent legal
1 We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might ultimately be appropriate as ICE processes the responsive records.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-5 Filed 05/24/17 Page 6 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
residents. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/priebus-says-green-card-holdersexempt-from-entry-ban.html?mid=twitter_nymag (last accessed January 30, 2017). At least two lawsuits have already been filed challenging the legality of the Executive Order in and of itself, https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-state-washington-files-suit-against-trump-travel-202035930. html (last accessed January 30, 2017); https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/14069cair-files-federal-suit-challenging-constitutionality-of-trump-s-muslim-ban-executive-order.html (last accessed January 30, 2017), and acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired by President Trump after she publicly stated that DOJ would not defend the Executive Order in court. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/meet-the-acting-attorney-generalfired-by-trump-and-accused-of-betraying-the-justice-department/2017/01/30/05d4478c-e75011e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.093d0ec54fcc (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Finally, and again in reliance upon the same public interest reasons outlined above, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
The records responsive to this FOIA request clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has an urgent and active need to know. The bureaucratic dysfunction surrounding the implementation of the Executive Order is effectively a case study on how not to prepare for a major policy change. The impact of the Executive Order continues to this day.
If ICE denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible. Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif. Please provide soft-copy records by email or on a CD if email is not feasible. However, the Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance that such a fee is required, the Requesters will accept a paper copy of responsive records.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 907-7945 or via e-mail at brad@jamesmadisonproject.org.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-5 Filed 05/24/17 Page 7 of 7 The James Madison Project
______________________________________________________________________________ Sincerely, /s/ Bradley P. Moss Deputy Executive Director
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-6 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 7
Exhibit 6
USCIS Request

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-6 Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 7
The James Madison Project 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 498-0011 (202) 330-5610 fax

E-Mail: FOIA@JamesMadisonProject.org http://www.JamesMadisonProject.org

January 31, 2017

VIA E-MAIL

Jill Eggleston FOIA Officer U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services National Records Center FOIA/PA Office P.O. Box 648010 Lee’s Summit, MO 64064-8010

Re: FOIA Request – Immigration Executive Order

Dear Ms. Eggleston:

This is a request on behalf of The James Madison Project (“JMP”) and The Daily Beast’s Executive Editor, Noah Shachtman (“Mr. Shachtman”)(hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. This request seeks copies of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) records, including crossreferences, memorializing the following:

1) Any records memorializing discussions between USCIS staff and private staff, Presidential transition staff, and/or White House staff of President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) regarding the legality of (and recommended means of implementing) an Executive Order barring entry of certain categories of foreign nationals based strictly on their nationality, including, but not limited to, individuals who qualify as refugees, U.S. legal permanent residents, and holders of a valid U.S. visa;

2) Any records memorializing discussions between USCIS staff and other Federal agencies regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;

______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-6 Filed 05/24/17 Page 3 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
3) Any records memorializing discussions among USCIS staff regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
4) Any records memorializing discussions between USCIS staff and Members of Congress (as well as Congressional staff members) regarding an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1, including, but not limited to, issues of legality and implementation;
5) Any records memorializing final determinations by USCIS staff regarding the extent to which an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1 would apply to U.S. citizens who hold dual citizenship; and
6) Any records memorializing final determinations by USCIS staff regarding the legality of an Executive Order that falls within the scope of category #1.
For context, President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?mtrref=www. nytimes.com&gwh=B456165D1D10E39DE6FBC6134CD77963&gwt=pay (last accessed January 30, 2017). The Executive Order suspended the U.S. Government refugee program, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and temporarily barred entry into the United States foreign nationals from seven countries. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-banmuslim-executive-order.html?_r=0 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
In the aftermath of the issuance of the Executive Order, chaos erupted at U.S. airports on January 28, 2017, as hundreds of individuals were detained and prevented from entering the United States despite holding valid entry paperwork. By the evening of January 29, 2017, at least four different U.S. district court judges had issued emergency injunctions preventing the U.S. Government from deporting individuals who had been detained pursuant to the Executive Order. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-reaction /index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Media reports quickly emerged revealing how little proactive coordination or planning had gone into vetting the legality of the Executive Order, let alone preparing to implement its requirements. The Department of Homeland Security only learned of the details as the Executive Order itself was being signed, and conflicting reports emerged about the extent to which DOJ OLC had conducted a standard legal review and issued approval. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/ 28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). News reports also indicate that individual Congressional staff members (without the knowledge of their respective Congressional employers) had assisted the Trump transition team in early drafting of
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-6 Filed 05/24/17 Page 4 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
the Executive Order. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order234392 (last accessed January 30, 2017).
To be clear, the scope of the six categories of information should encompass discussions and final determinations that occurred both prior and subsequent to President Trump’s signing of the Executive Order on January 27, 2017. The Requesters ask that USCIS uses, but does not limit itself to, the search terms “religious test”, “Christian ban”, “Jewish ban”, and “Muslim ban”.
USCIS can limit the timeframe of its search from November 8, 2016, up until the date the agency begins conducting searches for records responsive to this request. The scope of the searches should not be limited to USCIS-originated records and should be construed to include records that are currently in the possession of a U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management.
The Requesters are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials below a GS-14 position or whom otherwise were not acting in a supervisory position. The Requesters similarly waive any objection to redactions of the names of any U.S. Government contractors in a position of authority similar to that of a GS-13 series civilian employee or below.
In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, the Requesters submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002)(setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).
The work performed by these U.S. Government third parties (whether they be Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, evaluate the relevant legal and policy factors that would be implicated by an Executive Order seeking to severely restrict entry for entire categories of individuals based solely on their nationality and notwithstanding vetting that had already been conducted by the U.S. Government. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly by revealing official USCIS discussions about and determinations regarding President Trump’s controversial Executive Order, it would be
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-6 Filed 05/24/17 Page 5 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information indexed to their name.1
We are also requesting a waiver of or, at a minimum, a reduction in fees. At a minimum, both JMP and Mr. Shachtman qualify – in their own respective right – for designation as representatives of the news media.
JMP is a non-partisan organization dedicating to promoting government accountability and the reduction of secrecy. http://jamesmadisonproject.org/ (last accessed August 7, 2015). Mr. Shachtman is the Executive Editor of The Daily Beast, a New York-based media outlet with an estimated 40 million readers per month. http://www.thedailybeast.com/company/about-us.html (last accessed August 10, 2015).
The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles published by The Daily Beast. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii),
the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.
The Requesters can demonstrate their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The Daily Beast maintains the ability to produce news articles explaining the content of any responsive records received as part of this request. In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for authorization.
There is considerable public interest in disclosure of the requested records. Protests spread across the country on January 28, 2017, and January 29, 2017, and at numerous different U.S. airports. http://mashable.com/2017/01/28/airport-protests-muslim-ban/#lEiZInn4eOqa (last accessed January 30, 2017). Countless lawyers raced to the various U.S. airports to prove pro bono legal services to those who were impacted by the new entry restrictions. https://www. yahoo.com/news/trump-travel-ban-galvanizes-young-lawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017). In the aftermath of the court rulings and protests, revisions have already been made to exclude application of the entry restrictions to U.S. permanent legal
1 We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might ultimately be appropriate as USCIS processes the responsive records.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-6 Filed 05/24/17 Page 6 of 7
The James Madison Project ______________________________________________________________________________
residents. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/priebus-says-green-card-holdersexempt-from-entry-ban.html?mid=twitter_nymag (last accessed January 30, 2017). At least two lawsuits have already been filed challenging the legality of the Executive Order in and of itself, https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-state-washington-files-suit-against-trump-travel-202035930. html (last accessed January 30, 2017); https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/14069cair-files-federal-suit-challenging-constitutionality-of-trump-s-muslim-ban-executive-order.html (last accessed January 30, 2017), and acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired by President Trump after she publicly stated that DOJ would not defend the Executive Order in court. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/meet-the-acting-attorney-generalfired-by-trump-and-accused-of-betraying-the-justice-department/2017/01/30/05d4478c-e75011e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.093d0ec54fcc (last accessed January 30, 2017).
Finally, and again in reliance upon the same public interest reasons outlined above, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
The records responsive to this FOIA request clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has an urgent and active need to know. The bureaucratic dysfunction surrounding the implementation of the Executive Order is effectively a case study on how not to prepare for a major policy change. The impact of the Executive Order continues to this day.
If USCIS denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible. Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif, .tif. Please provide soft-copy records by email or on a CD if email is not feasible. However, the Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance that such a fee is required, the Requesters will accept a paper copy of responsive records.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 907-7945 or via e-mail at brad@jamesmadisonproject.org.
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 8-6 Filed 05/24/17 Page 7 of 7 The James Madison Project
______________________________________________________________________________ Sincerely, /s/ Bradley P. Moss Deputy Executive Director
______________________________________________________________________________ “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison, 1822

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 11 Filed 06/16/17 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT and )

NOAH SHACHTMAN,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 1:17-cv-00390-CKK

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Defendants Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah

Shachtman (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s

Order of May 31, 2017 [ECF No. 9]. The parties report as follows:

1. Plaintiffs initiated this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) on

March 3, 2017. The Complaint alleges that this action involves FOIA requests dated January 31,

2017, and submitted to DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), DHS, and four components of

DHS (the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(“CBP”), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services (“USCIS”)).

2. On May 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which explains that the

FOIA request to OLC was not actually submitted to the agency until March 24, 2017.

– 1 –

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 11 Filed 06/16/17 Page 2 of 3
3. OLC, DHS, and the four DHS components have initiated searches for records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests. As discussed more fully below, TSA has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request, and the remaining agencies/components are still determining the volume of records at issue.
4. TSA has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request and released 35 pages of responsive records, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure and referring some information to DHS for further review.
5. USCIS’s initial search located several thousand pages of records, which require de-duplication and further review to determine how many are actually responsive.
6. DHS and ICE’s searches have each located several thousand pages of records. These records are undergoing pre-processing, including de-duplication, which will determine the number of records that require further review to determine how many are responsive.
7. CBP and OLC are not yet able to provide estimates of the volume of potentially responsive records they will need to process.
8. The parties have begun conferring about certain aspects of Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests, and their ongoing discussions are likely to affect the number of records at issue.
9. Because of the current status of the FOIA requests to OLC, DHS, USCIS, ICE, and CBP, these agencies/components are not yet able to provide estimated release dates or to determine the likelihood that any of them will seek an Open America stay.
10. The parties also agree that it is too early to determine whether Defendants will need to prepare Vaughn indices.
– 2 –

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 11 Filed 06/16/17 Page 3 of 3

11. The parties respectfully propose that they file another Joint Status Report no later

than July 21, 2017.

Dated: June 16, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bradley P. Moss, Esq. Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532 Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Mark@MarkZaid.com Brad@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Matthew J. Berns MATTHEW J. BERNS Trial Attorney (DC Bar No. 998094) United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Defendants

– 3 –

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 12 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT and )

NOAH SHACHTMAN,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 1:17-cv-00390-CKK

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Defendants Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”)(collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah

Shachtman (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s

Minute Order, dated June 21, 2017. The parties report as follows:

1. Plaintiffs initiated this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) on

March 3, 2017. The Complaint alleges that this action involves FOIA requests dated

January 31, 2017, and submitted to DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), DHS, and four

components of DHS (the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”), U.S. Customs and

Border Protection (“CBP”), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)).

2. On May 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which explains that the

FOIA request to OLC was not actually submitted to the agency until March 24, 2017.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 12 Filed 07/21/17 Page 2 of 3
3. OLC, DHS, and the four DHS components have initiated searches for records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests.
4. TSA has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 35 pages of responsive records, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure and referring some information to DHS for further review.
5. CBP has begun rolling production of non-exempt records, with the first production issued on July 20, 2017. Its search is ongoing, and the agency is still determining the volume of records at issue.
6. Searches conducted by USCIS and ICE have located approximately 6,000 pages and 3,500 pages of potentially responsive records, respectively. ICE is prepared to start rolling production of non-exempt records in August 2017. USCIS is not yet able to provide a timeframe upon which rolling production will begin, and is continuing to refine the scope of its search for potentially responsive records.
7. OLC’s searches have located tens of thousands of pages of potentially responsive records. DHS is still determining the volume of records at issue.
8. Both with respect to OLC and with respect to DHS and its components, the parties are discussing possible means by which to narrow the scope of responsive records.
9. The parties agree that it is too early to determine whether Defendants will need to prepare Vaughn indices.
10. The parties respectfully propose that they file another Joint Status Report no later than September 5, 2017.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 12 Filed 07/21/17 Page 3 of 3

Dated: July 21, 2017
/s/_________________ Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532 Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Brad@MarkZaid.com Mark@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ MATTHEW J. BERNS
Trial Attorney (DC Bar No. 998094) United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

3

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 13 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT and )

NOAH SHACHTMAN,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 1:17-cv-00390-CKK

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Defendants Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah

Shachtman (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s

Minute Order, dated July 27, 2017. The parties report as follows:

1. Plaintiffs initiated this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) on

March 3, 2017. The Complaint alleges that this action involves FOIA requests dated

January 31, 2017, and submitted to DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), DHS, and four

components of DHS (the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”), U.S. Customs and

Border Protection (“CBP”), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)).

2. On May 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which explains that the

FOIA request to OLC was not actually submitted to the agency until March 24, 2017.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 13 Filed 09/05/17 Page 2 of 4
3. OLC, DHS, and the four DHS components have initiated searches for records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.
4. TSA has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 35 pages of responsive records, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure and referring some information to DHS for further review.
5. With respect to OLC, DHS, and the remaining DHS components, the parties have been conferring about the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests, and Plaintiffs have agreed to certain limitations or clarifications of their scope.
6. CBP has begun rolling production of non-exempt records, with the first production issued on July 20, 2017. The agency has received a large number of FOIA requests for records relating to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” and its searches for records responsive to those requests have located tens of thousands of records. The agency’s search for records responsive to the particular FOIA request at issue in this case is still ongoing, and the agency is still determining the volume of records at issue, while it makes rolling productions of the responsive records located so far.
7. ICE’s search located approximately 3,500 pages of potentially responsive records. Since the parties’ last Joint Status Report, ICE began making productions of non-exempt records. ICE anticipates making rolling productions and completing its response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request by the end of January 2018, with the potential exception of records requiring interagency review.
8. USCIS’s search located approximately 6,000 pages of potentially responsive records. USCIS has not yet begun making productions, but anticipates completing its response
2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 13 Filed 09/05/17 Page 3 of 4
to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request in early 2018, with the potential exception of records requiring interagency review.
9. OLC conducted a keyword-based search for records relating to one or both of the Executive Orders, issued on January 27, 2017, and March 6, 2017, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” This search was designed to capture records responsive to any of twenty-five pending FOIA requests, including Plaintiffs’, which seek various categories of OLC records relating to these Executive Orders. Since the parties’ last Joint Status Report, OLC has determined that its keyword-based search identified over 14,000 potentially responsive documents, including emails and stand-alone files. With email attachments included in the count, the number of potentially responsive records requiring further responsiveness review totals more than 26,000.
10. On August 2, 2017, OLC released 13 pages of records consisting of final OLC legal advice documents relating to the Executive Orders. OLC anticipates completing its initial manual responsiveness review of the remaining potentially responsive records in September 2017, and beginning rolling productions in October 2017. (Some productions may consist entirely of the denial in full of a specified number of pages.) OLC anticipates being able to estimate when it will complete its response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request once OLC has completed its initial manual responsiveness review.
11. DHS has conducted an initial search that located approximately 400 pages of potentially responsive records and has begun its review of this material. DHS anticipates beginning rolling productions of responsive records and evaluating whether additional searches are warranted.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 13 Filed 09/05/17 Page 4 of 4

12. The parties agree that it is too early to determine whether Defendants will need to prepare Vaughn indices.
13. The parties respectfully propose that they file another Joint Status Report no later than November 6, 2017.

Dated: September 5, 2017
/s/_________________ Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532
Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Brad@MarkZaid.com Mark@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ MATTHEW J. BERNS
Trial Attorney (DC Bar No. 998094) United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

4

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 14 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT and )

NOAH SHACHTMAN,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 1:17-cv-00390-CKK

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Defendants Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah

Shachtman (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s

Minute Order, dated September 20, 2017. The parties report as follows:

1. Plaintiffs initiated this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) on

March 3, 2017. The Complaint alleges that this action involves FOIA requests dated

January 31, 2017, and submitted to DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), DHS, and four

components of DHS (the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”), U.S. Customs and

Border Protection (“CBP”), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)).

2. On May 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which explains that the

FOIA request to OLC was not actually submitted to the agency until March 24, 2017.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 14 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 4
3. OLC, DHS, and the four DHS components have initiated searches for records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.
4. TSA has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 35 pages of responsive records, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure and referring some information to DHS for further review.
5. With respect to OLC, DHS, and the remaining DHS components, the parties have been conferring about the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests, and Plaintiffs have agreed to certain limitations or clarifications of their scope.
6. CBP has begun rolling production of non-exempt records, with the first production issued on July 20, 2017. The agency has received a large number of FOIA requests for records relating to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” and its searches for records responsive to those requests have located tens of thousands of records. The agency is making rolling productions and uploading records relating to the Executive Order to its online FOIA library. The agency expects the pace of its productions to increase in the coming weeks.
7. ICE’s search located approximately 3,500 pages of potentially responsive records. ICE has been making rolling productions of non-exempt records on a monthly basis and anticipates completing its response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request by the end of January 2018, with the potential exception of records requiring interagency review.
8. USCIS’s search located approximately 6,000 pages of potentially responsive records. USCIS has not yet begun making productions, but anticipates completing its response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request in early 2018, with the potential exception of records requiring interagency review.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 14 Filed 11/06/17 Page 3 of 4
9. OLC conducted a keyword-based search for records relating to one or both of the Executive Orders, issued on January 27, 2017, and March 6, 2017, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” This search was designed to capture records responsive to any of twenty-five pending FOIA requests, including Plaintiffs’, which seek various categories of OLC records relating to these Executive Orders. OLC’s keywordbased search identified over 14,000 potentially responsive documents, including emails and stand-alone files. With email attachments included in the count, the number of potentially responsive records requiring further responsiveness review totaled more than 26,000.
10. On August 2, 2017, OLC released 13 pages of records consisting of final OLC legal advice documents relating to the Executive Orders. Since the last joint status report, OLC completed its initial manual responsiveness review and deduplication of the potentially responsive records that it had not already released. This review reduced the volume of potentially responsive records requiring further review for responsiveness and potential withholdings from over 26,000 documents to approximately 2,730 documents. OLC made a production from this batch of documents on October 31 and will be making rolling productions going forward.
11. DHS conducted an initial search that located approximately 400 pages of potentially responsive records. An expanded search located approximately 200 additional pages, and remains in progress. Of the records located so far, most if not all have been or will be circulated by DHS for consultation with other agencies or components.
12. The parties agree that it is too early to determine whether Defendants will need to prepare Vaughn indices.
13. The parties respectfully propose that they file another Joint Status Report no later than January 19, 2018.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 14 Filed 11/06/17 Page 4 of 4

Dated: November 6, 2017
/s/_________________ Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532
Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Brad@MarkZaid.com Mark@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ MATTHEW J. BERNS
Trial Attorney (DC Bar No. 998094) United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

4

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 15 Filed 01/19/18 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT and )

NOAH SHACHTMAN,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 1:17-cv-00390-CKK

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Defendants Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah

Shachtman (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s

Minute Order, dated November 20, 2017. The parties report as follows:

1. Plaintiffs initiated this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) on

March 3, 2017. The Complaint alleges that this action involves FOIA requests dated

January 31, 2017, and submitted to DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), DHS, and four

components of DHS (the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”), U.S. Customs and

Border Protection (“CBP”), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)).

2. On May 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which explains that the

FOIA request to OLC was not actually submitted to the agency until March 24, 2017.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 15 Filed 01/19/18 Page 2 of 4
3. OLC, DHS, and the four DHS components have initiated searches for records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.
4. TSA has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 35 pages of responsive records, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure and referring some information to DHS for further review. DHS processed TSA’s referral and sent its response to Plaintiff on December 27, 2017.
5. With respect to OLC, DHS, and the remaining DHS components, the parties have conferred about the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests, and Plaintiffs have agreed to certain limitations or clarifications of their scope.
6. CBP received a large number of FOIA requests for records relating to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” and its searches for records responsive to those requests have located tens of thousands of records. The agency is making rolling productions and uploading records relating to the Executive Order to its online FOIA library. CBP’s most recent release of records to Plaintiffs in this case was made on January 17, 2018, and totaled 530 pages, of which 137 pages were withheld in full and 393 pages were released in full or in part.
7. ICE’s search located approximately 3,500 pages of potentially responsive records. ICE has been making rolling productions of non-exempt records on a monthly basis and currently anticipates completing its response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request within approximately three months, with the potential exception of records requiring interagency review.
8. USCIS’s search located approximately 6,000 pages of potentially responsive records. Further review since the parties’ last joint status report reduced the volume of potentially responsive records to approximately 1,500 pages. USCIS anticipates completing its
2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 15 Filed 01/19/18 Page 3 of 4
response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request within the next few weeks, with the exception of records requiring interagency review.
9. OLC conducted a keyword-based search for records relating to one or both of the Executive Orders, issued on January 27, 2017, and March 6, 2017, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” This search was designed to capture records responsive to any of twenty-five pending FOIA requests, including Plaintiffs’, which seek various categories of OLC records relating to these Executive Orders. OLC’s keywordbased search identified over 14,000 potentially responsive documents, including emails and stand-alone files. With email attachments included in the count, the number of potentially responsive records requiring further responsiveness review totaled more than 26,000.
10. On August 2, 2017, OLC released 13 pages of records consisting of final OLC legal advice documents relating to the Executive Orders. OLC subsequently completed its initial manual responsiveness review and deduplication of the potentially responsive records that it had not already released. This review reduced the volume of potentially responsive records requiring further review for responsiveness and potential withholdings from over 26,000 documents to approximately 2,730 documents. OLC has been making monthly productions from this batch of documents since October 31, 2017. OLC’s productions to date from this batch of documents total 882 pages, of which 708 pages have been withheld in full and 174 pages have been released in full or in part.
11. DHS conducted an initial search that located approximately 400 pages of potentially responsive records. An expanded search located approximately 200 additional pages. These records (totaling approximately 600 pages) either are currently undergoing interagency review or are expected by DHS to be withheld in full. DHS more recently located an additional
3

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 15 Filed 01/19/18 Page 4 of 4

batch of approximately 600 documents that are potentially responsive to Plaintiffs’ request. DHS is currently reviewing those documents for responsiveness.
12. The parties agree that it is too early to determine whether Defendants will need to prepare Vaughn indices.
13. The parties respectfully propose that they file another Joint Status Report no later than March 20, 2018.

Dated: January 19, 2018
/s/_________________ Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532
Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Brad@MarkZaid.com Mark@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ MATTHEW J. BERNS
Trial Attorney (DC Bar No. 998094) United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-8016 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Matthew.J.Berns@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

4

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 17 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT and )

NOAH SHACHTMAN,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 1:17-cv-00390-CKK

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Defendants Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah

Shachtman (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s

Minute Order, dated February 28, 2018. The parties report as follows:

1. Plaintiffs initiated this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) on

March 3, 2017. The Complaint alleges that this action involves FOIA requests dated

January 31, 2017, and submitted to DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), DHS, and four

components of DHS (the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”), U.S. Customs and

Border Protection (“CBP”), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)).

2. On May 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which explains that the

FOIA request to OLC was not actually submitted to the agency until March 24, 2017.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 17 Filed 03/20/18 Page 2 of 5
3. OLC, DHS, and the four DHS components have initiated searches for records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.
4. TSA has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 35 pages of responsive records subject to FOIA, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure and referring some information to DHS for further review. DHS processed TSA’s referral and sent its response to Plaintiff on December 27, 2017.
5. With respect to OLC, DHS, and the remaining DHS components, the parties have conferred about the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests, and Plaintiffs have agreed to certain limitations or clarifications of their scope.
6. CBP received a large number of FOIA requests for records relating to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” and its searches for records responsive to those requests have located tens of thousands of records. The agency is making rolling productions and uploading records relating to the Executive Order to its online FOIA library. CBP’s most recent release of records to Plaintiffs in this case was made on January 17, 2018, and totaled 530 pages, of which 137 pages were withheld in full and 393 pages were released in full or in part. CBP is preparing another set of records for release and anticipates that its next production will be completed by April 30, 2018.
7. ICE has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request. ICE’s most recent release of records to Plaintiffs in this case was made on March 6, 2018. ICE released three pages of records subject to FOIA, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure. Another 14 pages have been referred for further intraand/or inter-agency review. ICE has now released all non-exempt records with the exception of
2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 17 Filed 03/20/18 Page 3 of 5
the records it has referred for further review. ICE is still awaiting the results of that further review, and following the completion of that process, ICE will endeavor to produce the remaining pages within 30 days.
8. USCIS has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 407 pages of records subject to FOIA in their entirety and 701 pages in part, withholding some information pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure. In addition, USCIS referred 138 pages of records for further intra- and/or inter-agency review. USCIS is still awaiting the results from that further review, and following the completion of that process, USCIS will endeavor to produce the remaining pages within 30 days.
9. OLC conducted a keyword-based search for records relating to one or both of the Executive Orders, issued on January 27, 2017, and March 6, 2017, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” This search was designed to capture records responsive to any of twenty-five pending FOIA requests, including Plaintiffs’, which seek various categories of OLC records relating to these Executive Orders. OLC’s keyword-based search identified over 14,000 potentially responsive documents, including emails and stand-alone files. With email attachments included in the count, the number of potentially responsive records requiring further responsiveness review totaled more than 26,000.
10. On August 2, 2017, OLC released 13 pages of records consisting of final OLC legal advice documents relating to the Executive Orders. OLC subsequently completed its initial manual responsiveness review and deduplication of the potentially responsive records that it had not already released. This review reduced the volume of potentially responsive records requiring further review for responsiveness and potential withholdings from over 26,000 documents to approximately 2,730 documents. OLC has been making approximately monthly productions
3

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 17 Filed 03/20/18 Page 4 of 5

from this batch of documents since October 31, 2017. OLC’s productions to date from this batch of documents total 1,766 pages, of which 1325 pages have been withheld in full and 441 pages have been released in full or in part.
11. DHS has completed its initial search and review of potentially responsive records. That search and initial review has located 1149 pages of records subject to FOIA, which DHS must further review and process. DHS anticipates that it will commence rolling production of records on an approximately monthly basis beginning on April 30, 2018 and will endeavor to produce 300 pages a month. DHS endeavors to complete its production by the end of August 2018.
12. The parties agree that it is too early to determine whether Defendants will need to prepare Vaughn indices.
13. The parties respectfully propose that they file another Joint Status Report no later than May 21, 2018.

Dated: March 20, 2018
/s/ Bradley P. Moss Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532
Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Brad@MarkZaid.com Mark@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Vinita B. Andrapalliyal VINITA B. ANDRAPALLIYAL
Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-0845 Fax: (202) 616-8470 vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov
4

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 17 Filed 03/20/18 Page 5 of 5 Counsel for Defendants
5

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 22 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT and )

NOAH SHACHTMAN,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 1:17-cv-00390-CKK

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Defendants Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah

Shachtman (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s

Minute Order, dated October 9, 2018. The parties report as follows:

1. Plaintiffs initiated this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

The Complaint alleges that this action involves FOIA requests submitted to DOJ’s Office of

Legal Counsel (“OLC”), DHS, and four components of DHS (the Transportation Security

Administration (“TSA”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)).

2. On May 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which explains that the

FOIA request to OLC was not actually submitted to the agency until March 24, 2017.

3. OLC, DHS, and the four DHS components have initiated searches for records

responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 22 Filed 01/29/19 Page 2 of 4
4. TSA has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 35 pages of responsive records subject to FOIA, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure and referring some information to DHS for further review. DHS processed TSA’s referral and sent its response to Plaintiff on December 27, 2017.
5. With respect to OLC, DHS, and the remaining DHS components, the parties have conferred about the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests, and Plaintiffs have agreed to certain limitations or clarifications of their scope.
6. CBP is making rolling productions and uploading records relating to the Executive Order to its online FOIA library. CBP’s most recent release of records to Plaintiffs in this case was made on November 8, 2018, and totaled 849 pages. CBP is preparing another set of records for release and anticipates that its next production will be completed by February 28, 2019.
7. ICE has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and has now released all non-exempt records with the exception of the records it has referred for further review. ICE’s most recent release of records to Plaintiffs in this case was made on March 6, 2018. ICE released three pages of records subject to FOIA, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure. Another 14 pages have been referred for further intra- and/or inter-agency review. On May 31, 2018, DHS completed its further review of some records that ICE had referred to it. It released 56 pages in full or in part and withheld 4 pages in full. ICE is still awaiting the results of that further review, and following the completion of that process, ICE will endeavor to produce the remaining pages within 30 days.
2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 22 Filed 01/29/19 Page 3 of 4
8. USCIS has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 407 pages of records subject to FOIA in their entirety and 701 pages in part, withholding some information pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure. In addition, it referred 138 pages of records for further intra- and/or inter-agency review. In May 2018, USCIS released in part eight pages of records that had it had received back from consultation. In July 2018, USCIS released in part another eight pages of records that it had received back from consultation. USCIS’s production is now complete.
9. OLC has been making approximately monthly productions since October 31, 2017. OLC’s productions to date from this batch of documents total 5,515 pages, of which 4,856 pages have been withheld in full and 659 pages have been released in full or in part.
10. DHS has completed its initial search and review of potentially responsive records. That search and initial review has located 1149 pages of records subject to FOIA, which DHS reviewed, processed, and sent out for further review as necessary. On May 31, 2018, DHS made a production of records from this batch of documents, releasing 14 pages in full or in part and withholding 132 pages in full. DHS also completed its review of 60 pages referred by ICE, as explained in paragraph 7. On August 10, 2018, DHS made another production of 1149 pages. This release includes pages previously released to plaintiff and records that had been sent to other agencies for consult. DHS will make a final release once all the consults have been returned.
11. The parties agree that it is too early to determine whether Defendants will need to prepare Vaughn indices.
12. The parties respectfully propose that they file another Joint Status Report no later than March 28, 2019.
3

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 22 Filed 01/29/19 Page 4 of 4

Dated: January 29, 2019
/s/ Bradley P. Moss Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532
Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Brad@MarkZaid.com Mark@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Vinita B. Andrapalliyal VINITA B. ANDRAPALLIYAL Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-0845 Fax: (202) 616-8470 vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

4

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 25 Filed 07/30/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT and )

NOAH SHACHTMAN,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 1:17-cv-00390-CKK

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Defendants Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah

Shachtman (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s

Minute Order, dated October 9, 2018. The parties report as follows:

1. Plaintiffs initiated this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

The Complaint alleges that this action involves FOIA requests submitted to DOJ’s Office of

Legal Counsel (“OLC”), DHS, and four components of DHS (the Transportation Security

Administration (“TSA”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)).

2. On May 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which explains that the

FOIA request to OLC was not actually submitted to the agency until March 24, 2017.

3. OLC, DHS, and the four DHS components have initiated searches for records

responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 25 Filed 07/30/19 Page 2 of 4
4. TSA has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 35 pages of responsive records subject to FOIA, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure and referring some information to DHS for further review. DHS processed TSA’s referral and sent its response to Plaintiff on December 27, 2017.
5. With respect to OLC, DHS, and the remaining DHS components, the parties have conferred about the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests, and Plaintiffs have agreed to certain limitations or clarifications of their scope.
6. CBP is making rolling productions and uploading records relating to the Executive Order to its online FOIA library. CBP’s most recent release of records to Plaintiffs in this case was made on May 31, 2019. CBP anticipates making another production on or before August 9, 2019.
7. ICE has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and has now released all non-exempt records with the exception of the records it has referred for further review. ICE’s most recent release of records to Plaintiffs in this case was made on March 6, 2018. ICE released three pages of records subject to FOIA, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure. Another 14 pages have been referred for further intra- and/or inter-agency review. On May 31, 2018, DHS completed its further review of some records that ICE had referred to it. It released 56 pages in full or in part and withheld 4 pages in full. ICE is still awaiting the results of that further review, and following the completion of that process, ICE will endeavor to produce the remaining pages within 30 days.
8. USCIS has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 407 pages of records subject to FOIA in their entirety and 701 pages in part, withholding some information
2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 25 Filed 07/30/19 Page 3 of 4

pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure. In addition, it referred 138 pages of records for further intra- and/or inter-agency review. In May 2018, USCIS released in part eight pages of records that had it had received back from consultation. In July 2018, USCIS released in part another eight pages of records that it had received back from consultation. USCIS’s production is now complete.
9. OLC has been making approximately monthly productions since October 31, 2017. OLC’s productions to date from this batch of documents total 6,097 pages, of which 5,405 pages have been withheld in full and 711 pages have been released in full or in part.
10. DHS has completed its initial search and review of potentially responsive records. That search and initial review has located 1149 pages of records subject to FOIA, which DHS reviewed, processed, and sent out for further review as necessary. On May 31, 2018, DHS made a production of records from this batch of documents, releasing 14 pages in full or in part and withholding 132 pages in full. DHS also completed its review of 60 pages referred by ICE, as explained in paragraph 7. On August 10, 2018, DHS made another production of 1149 pages. This release includes pages previously released to plaintiff and records that had been sent to other agencies for consult. DHS will make a final release once all the consults have been returned.
11. The parties agree that it is too early to determine whether Defendants will need to prepare Vaughn indices.
12. The parties respectfully propose that they file another Joint Status Report no later than October 1, 2019.

Dated: July 30, 2019 /s/ Bradley P. Moss

Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H. HUNT
3

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 25 Filed 07/30/19 Page 4 of 4

Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905 Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532
Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Brad@MarkZaid.com Mark@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Assistant Attorney General
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Vinita B. Andrapalliyal VINITA B. ANDRAPALLIYAL Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-0845 Fax: (202) 616-8470 vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

4

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 29 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT and )

NOAH SHACHTMAN,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

No. 1:17-cv-00390-CKK

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________)

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Defendants Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs The James Madison Project and Noah

Shachtman (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s

Minute Order, dated July 31, 2019. The parties report as follows:

1. Plaintiffs initiated this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

The Complaint alleges that this action involves FOIA requests submitted to DOJ’s Office of

Legal Counsel (“OLC”), DHS, and four components of DHS (the Transportation Security

Administration (“TSA”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)).

2. On May 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which explains that the

FOIA request to OLC was not actually submitted to the agency until March 24, 2017.

3. OLC, DHS, and the four DHS components have initiated searches for records

responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 29 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 4
4. TSA has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 35 pages of responsive records subject to FOIA, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure and referring some information to DHS for further review. DHS processed TSA’s referral and sent its response to Plaintiff on December 27, 2017.
5. With respect to OLC, DHS, and the remaining DHS components, the parties have conferred about the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests, and Plaintiffs have agreed to certain limitations or clarifications of their scope.
6. CBP is making rolling productions and uploading records relating to the Executive Order to its online FOIA library. CBP’s most recent release of records to Plaintiffs in this case was made on February 24, 2020.
7. ICE has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and has now released all non-exempt records with the exception of the records it has referred for further review. ICE’s most recent release of records to Plaintiffs in this case was made on March 6, 2018. ICE released three pages of records subject to FOIA, withholding some information in those records pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure. Another 14 pages have been referred for further intra- and/or inter-agency review. On May 31, 2018, DHS completed its further review of some records that ICE had referred to it. It released 56 pages in full or in part and withheld 4 pages in full. ICE is still awaiting the results of that further review, and following the completion of that process, ICE will endeavor to produce the remaining pages within 30 days.
8. USCIS has completed its processing of Plaintiffs’ request and released 407 pages of records subject to FOIA in their entirety and 701 pages in part, withholding some information pursuant to the FOIA’s statutory exemptions from disclosure. In addition, it referred 138 pages
2

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 29 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 4

of records for further intra- and/or inter-agency review. In May 2018, USCIS released in part eight pages of records that had it had received back from consultation. In July 2018, USCIS released in part another eight pages of records that it had received back from consultation. USCIS’s production is now complete.
9. OLC has been making periodic productions since October 31, 2017. OLC’s productions to date from this batch of documents total 6,861 pages, of which 6,112 pages have been withheld in full and 750 pages have been released in full or in part.
10. DHS has completed its initial search and review of potentially responsive records. That search and initial review has located 1149 pages of records subject to FOIA, which DHS reviewed, processed, and sent out for further review as necessary. On May 31, 2018, DHS made a production of records from this batch of documents, releasing 14 pages in full or in part and withholding 132 pages in full. DHS also completed its review of 60 pages referred by ICE, as explained in paragraph 7. On August 10, 2018, DHS made another production of 1149 pages. This release includes pages previously released to plaintiff and records that had been sent to other agencies for consult. DHS will make a final release once all the consults have been returned.
11. The parties agree that it is too early to determine whether Defendants will need to prepare Vaughn indices.
12. The parties respectfully propose that they file another Joint Status Report no later than June 9, 2020.

Dated: April 7, 2020
/s/ Bradley P. Moss Bradley P. Moss, Esq. D.C. Bar #975905

Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General
3

Case 1:17-cv-00390-CKK Document 29 Filed 04/07/20 Page 4 of 4

Mark S. Zaid, Esq. D.C. Bar #440532
Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 454-2809 (202) 330-5610 fax Brad@MarkZaid.com Mark@MarkZaid.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Vinita B. Andrapalliyal VINITA B. ANDRAPALLIYAL Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-0845 Fax: (202) 616-8470 vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

4

 
 U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17−cv−00390−CKK

TYPE I−FOIA

JAMES MADISON PROJECT et al v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al Assigned to: Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/03/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

JAMES MADISON PROJECT

represented by Bradley Prescott Moss LAW OFFICES OF MARK S. ZAID, P.C. 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 454−2809 Fax: (202) 330−5610 Email: brad@markzaid.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff NOAH SHACHTMAN

represented by Bradley Prescott Moss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Defendant DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

represented by Matthew Joseph Berns NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street 8th Floor, West Wing Trenton, NJ 08625−0080 (202) 616−8016 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: matthew.j.berns@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vinita B. Andrapalliyal U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 305−0845 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew Joseph Berns (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/08/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vinita B. Andrapalliyal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/03/2017
03/03/2017 03/03/2017 03/06/2017 03/23/2017 03/28/2017 03/29/2017
03/29/2017 05/08/2017 05/10/2017
05/10/2017 05/24/2017
05/31/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090−4863750) filed by THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT, NOAH SHACHTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Rule 7.1 certification, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Summons DHS, # 4 Summons DOJ, # 5 Summons USADC, # 6 Summons USAG)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
Case Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly. (zsb) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
2 SUMMONS (4) Issued Electronically as to DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Consent Form)(zsb) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
3 ORDER Establishing Procedures for Cases Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on March 6, 2017. (NS) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Joseph Berns on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
5 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Defendants' 5 Consent Motion, which requests an extension of time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint. For good cause shown, the Consent Motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by MAY 12, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 3/29/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 5/12/2017. (dot) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
6 Consent MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint by JAMES MADISON PROJECT, NOAH SHACHTMAN (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A − First Amended Complaint, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' 6 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, which requests leave to file an amended complaint in this action, and indicates that Defendants do not oppose this relief. This Motion is GRANTED, as the Court finds that "justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 6−2, is deemed filed as of this date. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 5/10/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE filed by JAMES MADISON PROJECT, NOAH SHACHTMAN.(znmw) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
8 ANSWER to 7 Amended Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Related document: 7 Amended Complaint filed by NOAH SHACHTMAN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − OLC Request, # 2 Exhibit 2 − DHS Request, # 3 Exhibit 3 − TSA Request, # 4 Exhibit 4 − CBP Request, # 5 Exhibit 5 − ICE Request, # 6 Exhibit 6 − USCIS Request)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
9 ORDER. The parties shall file a schedule not later than JUNE 7, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 5/31/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 05/31/2017)

05/31/2017 06/05/2017 06/06/2017 06/06/2017 06/16/2017 06/21/2017
06/21/2017 07/21/2017 07/27/2017
07/27/2017 09/05/2017 09/20/2017
09/20/2017 11/06/2017 11/20/2017

Set/Reset Deadlines: Parties shall file a scheduled by 6/7/2017. (dot) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
10 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Defendants' 10 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report. For good cause shown, that Motion is GRANTED. The parties shall file the Joint Status Report by JUNE 16, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 6/6/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 6/16/2017. (dot) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
11 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' 11 Joint Status Report, which indicates that Defendants have initiated searches for documents, and that some responsive materials have already been produced, and that the parties are conferring regarding the remaining issues in this matter. Accordingly, the parties shall file a further status report by JULY 21, 2017, updating the Court regarding the status of document productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 6/21/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 7/21/2017. (dot) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
12 Joint STATUS REPORT by JAMES MADISON PROJECT, NOAH SHACHTMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' 12 Joint Status Report, which indicates that Defendants have initiated searches for documents, and that some responsive materials have already been produced, and that the parties are conferring regarding the remaining issues in this matter. Accordingly, the parties shall file a further status report by SEPTEMBER 5, 2017, updating the Court regarding the status of document productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 7/27/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 9/5/2017. (dot) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
13 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' 12 Joint Status Report, which indicates that Defendants have initiated searches for documents, and that some responsive materials have already been produced, and that the parties are conferring regarding the remaining issues in this matter. Accordingly, the parties shall file a further status report by NOVEMBER 6, 2017, updating the Court regarding the status of document productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 9/20/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 11/6/2017. (dot) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
14 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' 14 Joint Status Report, which indicates that Defendants have initiated searches for documents, and that some responsive materials have already been produced, and that the parties are conferring regarding the remaining issues in this matter. Accordingly, the parties shall file a further status report by JANUARY 19, 2018, updating the Court regarding the status of document productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on November 20, 2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 11/20/2017)

11/20/2017 01/19/2018 02/08/2018 02/28/2018
02/28/2018 03/20/2018 04/12/2018
04/12/2018 05/21/2018 05/21/2018
05/21/2018 07/23/2018 08/02/2018
08/02/2018 09/24/2018 10/09/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 1/19/2018. (dot) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
15 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
16 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Vinita Balakrishnan Andrapalliyal on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Substituting for attorney Matthew J. Berns (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' 15 Joint Status Report, which indicates that Defendants have been reviewing and producing documents on an ongoing basis. As part of this process, "the parties have conferred about the scope of Plaintiffs' requests, and Plaintiffs have agreed to certain limitations or clarifications of their scope." The Court adopts the parties' proposal that they file a further status report by MARCH 20, 2018, updating the Court regarding the status of document productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on February 28, 2018. (lcckk1) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 3/20/2018. (dot) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
17 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 03/20/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' 17 Joint Status Report, which indicates that Defendants have been reviewing and producing documents on an ongoing basis. The Court adopts the parties' proposal that they file a further status report by MAY 21, 2018, updating the Court regarding the status of document productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on April 12, 2018. (lcckk1) (Entered: 04/12/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/21/2018. (dot) (Entered: 04/12/2018)
18 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' 18 Joint Status Report, which indicates that Defendants have been reviewing and producing documents on an ongoing basis. The Court adopts the parties' proposal that they file a further status report by JULY 23, 2018, updating the Court regarding the status of document productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on May 21, 2018. (lcckk1 ) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 7/23/2018. (dot) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
19 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' 19 Joint Status Report, which indicates that Defendants have been reviewing and producing documents on an ongoing basis. The Court adopts the parties' proposal that they file a further status report by SEPTEMBER 24, 2018, updating the Court regarding the status of document productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on August 2, 2018. (lcckk1) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 9/24/2018, updating the Court regarding the status of document productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. (dot) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
20 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' 20 Joint Status Report, which indicates that Defendants have been reviewing and producing documents on an

10/09/2018 11/27/2018 01/29/2019 03/28/2019 05/28/2019 07/30/2019 07/31/2019
07/31/2019 10/01/2019 12/03/2019 02/04/2020 04/07/2020

ongoing basis. The Court adopts the parties' proposal that they file a further Joint Status Report by NOVEMBER 27, 2018, updating the Court regarding the status of document productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. The parties shall continue to submit further Joint Status Reports every sixty days thereafter, unless and until the Court orders otherwise. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on October 9, 2018. (lcckk1) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 11/27/2018, updating the Court regarding the status of document productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. (dot) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
21 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
22 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
23 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
24 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
25 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 07/30/2019)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' latest 25 Joint Status Report, which indicates that Defendants have been reviewing and producing documents on an ongoing basis. However, the Office of Legal Counsel's productions to date have not been updated since the prior 24 Joint Status Report, contrary to the Court's expectation because OLC "has been making approximately monthly productions." The parties' next Joint Status Report shall include an OLC update. The Court adopts the parties' proposal that they file a further Joint Status Report by OCTOBER 1, 2019, updating the Court regarding the status of document review and productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. That Joint Status Report shall tightly summarize what the parties have previously reported to the Court and shall focus the Court's attention on Defendants' latest progress in review and production. Defendants also shall identify anticipated timelines for concluding their productions in this case. The parties shall continue to submit further Joint Status Reports every sixty days thereafter, unless and until the Court orders otherwise. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on July 31, 2019. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 10/1/2019, updating the Court regarding the status of document review and productions, and proposing a briefing schedule, if necessary. (dot) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
26 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 10/01/2019)
27 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
28 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 02/04/2020)
29 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Andrapalliyal, Vinita) (Entered: 04/07/2020)