Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT

*

1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW

*

Suite 200

*

Washington, D.C. 20036

*

*

and

*

*

KEN VOGEL

*

c/o Politico

*

1000 Wilson Boulevard

*

8th Floor

*

Arlington, VA 22209

*

*

and

* Civil Action No. 17-388

*

JOSH GERSTEIN

*

c/o Politico

*

1000 Wilson Boulevard

*

8th Floor

*

Arlington, VA 22209

*

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

*

*

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

*

SECURITY

*

STOP-0655

*

245 Murray Lane, SW

*

Washington, D.C. 20528-0655

*

*

Defendant.

*

*

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

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 improperly withheld from plaintiffs

The James Madison Project, Ken Vogel and Josh Gerstein by the defendant Department of

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 9
Homeland Security (as well as its subordinate entities). 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 Ken Vogel (“Vogel”) is the chief investigative reporter for Politico, and is a representative of the news media. 5. Plaintiff Josh Gerstein (“Gerstein”) is the senior reporter for Politico, covering legal affairs and transparency, and is a representative of the news media. 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-00388-APM Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 9
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. This lawsuit is brought under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) for the purpose of shedding light on how DHS (and its subordinate entities) coordinated with private and commercial airlines in implementing new entry, admission and deportation standards established by way of the so-called “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-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). 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-immigrationreaction/index.html (last accessed 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/trumptravel-ban-galvanizes-young-lawyers-action-023327562.html (last accessed January 30, 2017).
3

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 9
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-patrol-defies-judge-u-s-senator-at-dulles-airport-at-his-firstconstitutional-crisis-unfolds.html (last accessed January 31, 2017); http://www.huffingtonpost. com/entry/dulles-airport-feds-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 (TSA) 11. The plaintiffs JMP, Vogel and Gerstein (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 TSA a FOIA request. 13. The FOIA request sought copies of 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.
4

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 5 of 9
14. The Requesters advised TSA that it could limit the timeframe of its searches from January 20, 2017, up until the date the agency began conducting actual searches for responsive records. The Requesters noted that the scope of the searches should not be limited to TSA-originated records.
15. 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 who 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.
16. 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 of the FOIA request.
17. By letter dated February 7, 2017, TSA acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it request number 2017-HQFO-00327. In its letter, TSA stated that it was granting a fee waiver and expedited processing.
18. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from TSA. 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 TSA of said right.
5

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 6 of 9
COUNT TWO (CPB) 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 CBP a FOIA request. 22. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 16, 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 TSA request. 23. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from CBP. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies. 24. 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 THREE (ICE) 25. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 26. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to ICE a FOIA request. 27. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 16, 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 TSA request. 28. By letter dated February 6, 2017, ICE acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it request number 2017-ICFO-14610.
6

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 7 of 9
29. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from ICE. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies.
30. 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 FOUR (USCIS) 31. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 32. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to USCIS a FOIA request. 33. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 16, 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 TSA request. 34. By letter dated February 2, 2017, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it request number 2017-HQFO-00283. In its letter, USCIS stated that it was granting a fee waiver and expedited processing. 35. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from USCIS. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies. 36. 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.
COUNT FIVE (DHS) 37. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 10 above, inclusive. 38. By letter dated January 31, 2017, the Requesters submitted to DHS a FOIA request.
7

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 8 of 9
39. The Requesters repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 through 16, 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 TSA request.
40. By letter dated February 6, 2017, DHS acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and assigned it request number 2017-HQFO-00303. In its letter, DHS stated that it was granting a fee waiver and expedited processing.
41. To date, no substantive response has been received by the Requesters from DHS. The Requesters have constructively exhausted all required administrative remedies.
42. 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.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs The James Madison Project, Ken Vogel and Josh Gerstein pray that this Court:
(1) Orders the defendant federal agency 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);
(3) expedite this action in every way pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657 (a); and (4) grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
8

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 9 of 9

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

9

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 1-1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 1-1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM Document 1-2 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM 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 HOMELAND SECURITY

)

)

Defendant

)

Civil Action No.

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-00388-APM Document 1-3 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2
FOIA Summons (12/11) (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Reset

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM 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 HOMELAND SECURITY

)

)

Defendant

)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address)
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530

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-00388-APM Document 1-4 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2
FOIA Summons (12/11) (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Reset

Case 1:17-cv-00388-APM 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 HOMELAND SECURITY

)

)

Defendant

)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address)
U.S. Attorney General Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

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-00388-APM Document 1-5 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2
FOIA Summons (12/11) (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Reset

 
 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-388 As of: 08/06/2018 12:35 AM EDT 1 of 4
CLOSED,TYPE I−FOIA
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17−cv−00388−APM

JAMES MADISON PROJECT et al v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Assigned to: Judge Amit P. Mehta Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/03/2017 Date Terminated: 07/31/2018 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 200 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 454−2809 Fax: (202) 330−5610 Email: brad@markzaid.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KEN VOGEL

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

Plaintiff JOSH GERSTEIN

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

V.
Defendant
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

represented by Elizabeth Murray Tulis U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Programs Branch − Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−9237 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: elizabeth.tulis@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
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: 02/16/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-388 As of: 08/06/2018 12:35 AM EDT 2 of 4

Date Filed 03/03/2017
03/03/2017 03/03/2017 03/23/2017 03/28/2017 03/28/2017 03/28/2017 05/12/2017
05/12/2017
05/12/2017 06/16/2017 06/19/2017 06/19/2017 07/21/2017 07/25/2017
07/25/2017 09/05/2017 09/06/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090−4863550) filed by THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT, JOSH GERSTEIN, KEN VOGEL. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Rule 7.1 certification, # 3 Summons DHS, # 4 Summons USADC, # 5 Summons USAG)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
Case Assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zsb) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
2 SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Consent Form)(zsb) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Joseph Berns on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
4 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
MINUTE ORDER granting Defendant's 4 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant's responsive pleading is now due on or before May 12, 2017. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/28/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Responsive pleading due by 5/12/2017. (zcdw) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
5 ANSWER to Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − TSA Request, # 2 Exhibit 2 − CBP Request, # 3 Exhibit 3 − ICE Request, # 4 Exhibit 4 − USCIS Request, # 5 Exhibit 5 − DHS Request)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
6 ORDER: Both a Complaint and an Answer are now before the court in this FOIA case. It is hereby ordered that the parties shall meet and confer and file a Joint Status Report on or before June 16, 2017. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Amit P. Mehta on 05/12/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 6/16/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
7 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' 7 June 16, 2017, Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report on or before July 21, 2017. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 06/19/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 7/21/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
8 Joint STATUS REPORT by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT, KEN VOGEL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' 8 July 21, 2017, Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report on or before September 5, 2017. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 07/25/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 9/5/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
9 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' 9 September 5, 2017, Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report on or before

Case: 1:17-cv-388 As of: 08/06/2018 12:35 AM EDT 3 of 4

09/06/2017 10/05/2017 10/06/2017
10/06/2017 12/18/2017 12/18/2017 12/18/2017 01/19/2018 01/19/2018
01/19/2018 02/16/2018 03/02/2018 03/02/2018
03/02/2018 04/02/2018 04/04/2018
04/04/2018 04/23/2018

October 5, 2017. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 09/06/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/06/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 10/5/2017. (zcdw) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
10 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' 10 October 5, 2017, Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report on or before December 18, 2017. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/06/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 12/18/2017. (zcdw) (Entered: 10/07/2017)
11 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' 11 Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report on or before January 19, 2018. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 12/18/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 1/19/2018. (zcdw) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
12 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berns, Matthew) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' 12 Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report on or before March 2, 2018, that updates the court on their efforts to resolve any outstanding issues and, if necessary, proposes a summary judgment briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 01/19/2018. (lcapm1) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 3/2/2018. (zcdw) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
13 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Elizabeth Murray Tulis on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Substituting for attorney Matthew J. Berns (Tulis, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
14 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Tulis, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' 14 March 2, 2018, Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report, on or before April 2, 2018, that updates the court on their progress and, if necessary, proposes a briefing schedule for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/02/2018. (lcapm1) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 4/2/2018. (mac) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
15 Joint STATUS REPORT by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT, KEN VOGEL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' 15 April, 2, 2018, Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report, on or before April 23, 2018, that updates the court on their progress toward resolving the matter and proposes a briefing schedule, if necessary. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/04/2018. (lcapm1) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 4/23/2018. (zcdw) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
16 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Tulis, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

Case: 1:17-cv-388 As of: 08/06/2018 12:35 AM EDT 4 of 4

04/23/2018
04/23/2018 05/10/2018 05/10/2018
05/10/2018 05/21/2018 05/21/2018
05/21/2018 06/22/2018 06/24/2018
06/24/2018 07/23/2018 07/24/2018
07/24/2018 07/31/2018

MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' 16 April, 23, 2018, Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report, on or before May 7, 2018, that updates the court on their progress and, if necessary, proposes a briefing schedule for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/23/2018. (lcapm1) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 5/7/2018. (zcdw) (Entered: 04/24/2018)
17 Joint STATUS REPORT by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT, KEN VOGEL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' 17 May 10, 2018, Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report, on or before May 21, 2018, advising the court whether the parties have resolved all outstanding disputes and, if not, proposing a briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/10/2018 (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint status report or proposed briefing schedule due by 5/21/2018. (zcdw) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
18 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Tulis, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' 18 Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report, on or before June 22, 2018, concerning their efforts to resolve this matter, including the issue of attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/21/2018. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 6/22/2018. (zjd) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
19 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Tulis, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' 19 Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report regarding the settlement of attorneys' fees on or before July 23, 2018, unless the parties file a stipulation of dismissal by that date. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 06/24/2018. (lcapm1) (Entered: 06/24/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 7/23/2018. (zjd) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
20 Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (Tulis, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' 20 Joint Status Report, the parties are directed to file another Joint Status Report regarding the settlement of attorneys' fees on or before August 1, 2018, unless the parties file a stipulation of dismissal by that date. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 07/24/2018. (lcapm1) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 8/1/2018. (zjd) (Entered: 07/25/2018)
21 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT, KEN VOGEL. (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 07/31/2018)