10-42 90-cv (L), 10-42 89-cv (CON) , 10- 4647- cv(XA P), 1 0-466 8-cv( XAP)

ACLU v. De p’t o f Jus tice 1 UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS 2 3 FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 4 5 6 7 Augus t Term, 20 11 8 9 (Argu ed: M arch 9, 20 12 D ecide d: Ma y 21, 2012 ) 10 11 Docke t Nos . 10- 4290- cv(L) , 10- 4289- cv(CO N), 1 0-464 7-cv( XAP), 12 10-46 68-cv (XAP) 13 14 15 AME R I C AN C I V I L L I B E R T I E S UN I O N , C E N T E R F O R C O N S T I T U T I O NA L R I G H T S , 16 I N C O R P O RA T E D , P H Y S I C I AN S F O R H UMAN R I G H T S , VE T E RAN S F O R C O MM O N S E N S E , 17 VE T E RAN S F O R P E A C E , 18 19 Plain tiffs -Appe llees -Cros s-App ellan ts , 20 21 –v.– 22 23 D E P AR T ME N T O F JU S T I C E , and i ts co mpone nt Of fice of Le gal 24 Couns el, C E N T RA L I N T E L L I G E N C E AG E N C Y , 25 26 Defen dants -Appe llant s-Cro ss-Appelle es , 27 28 D E P AR T ME N T O F D E F E N S E , and i ts co mpone nts D epart ment of Army, 29 Depar tmentof N avy, Depar tmentof A ir Fo rce, Defen se 30 Intel ligen ce Ag ency, D E P AR T ME N T O F H O ME L AN D S E C U R I T Y , D E P AR T ME N T O F 31 S T A T E , D E P AR T ME N T O F JU S T I C E compo nents Civi l Rig hts D ivisi on, 32 Crimi nal D ivisi on, O ffice of I nform ationand Priva cy, O ffice 33 of In telli gence , Pol icy a nd Re view, Fede ral B ureauof 34 Inves tigat ion, 35 36 Defen dants . 37 38 391 Befor e: 2 WE S L E Y , C ARN E Y , Circu it Ju dges , and C E DARB AUM , District Judge . * 3 4 Appea l andcros s-app eal f rom ajudgment of th e Uni ted 5 State s Dis trictCour t forthe South ern D istri ct ofNew York 6 (Hell erste in, J .), g ranti ng th e par ties’ moti ons f or pa rtial 7 summa ry ju dgmen t wit h res pect to Pl ainti ffs’ Freed om of 8 Informatio n Actrequ est f or th e dis closu re ofreco rds 9 conce rningthe treat ment of de taine es inUnit ed St ates 10 custo dy ab road since Sept ember11, 2001. The Gove rnmen t 11 chall enges the porti on ofthe judgment r equir ing i t to 12 discl ose i nform ationin t wo me moran da pe rtain ing t o wha t the 13 Gover nmentcons iders a hi ghly class ified , act ive 14 intel ligen ce me thod. Pla intif fs ch allen ge th e jud gment 15 insof ar as it s ustai ned t he Go vernment’s with holdi ng of 16 certa in re cords rela ting to th e use of w aterb oardi ng an d a 17 photo graphof ahigh -valu e det ainee in c ustod y. W e agr ee 18 with the d istri ct co urt t hat t he ma teria ls atissu e in 19 Plain tiffs ’ cro ss-ap peal are e xemptfromdisc losur e. T he 20 distr ict c ourt erred , how ever, in r equir ing t he Go vernment 21 to di sclos e the clas sifie d inf ormat ion r edact ed fr om th e two 22 memor anda. 23 24 AFFIR

MED in pa rt an dREVERSED in pa rt. 25 26 27 28 T ARA M. L A MO R T E , Ass istan t Uni ted S tates Atto rney 29 (Amy A. Ba rcelo , Sar ah S. Norm and, Assis tant 30 Unite d Sta tes A ttorn eys, on th e bri ef ), fo r 31 PreetBhar ara, Unite d Sta tes A ttorn ey fo r the 32 South ern D istri ct ofNew York, New York, NY; 33 (TonyWest , Ass istan t Att orneyGene ral, Ian 34 HeathGers hengo rn, D eputyAssi stantAtto rney 35 Gener al, D ougla s N. Lette r, Ma tthewM. 36 Colle tte, Attor neys, Civi l Div ision , App ellat e 37 Staff , Dep artme nt ofJust ice, Washi ngton , 38 D.C., on th e bri ef ), for D efendants39 Appel lants -Cros s-App ellee s .

The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, of the United * States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 21 AL E XAN D E R A. AB D O(Jameel J affer , Jud y Rab inovi tz, 2 Ameri can C ivil Liber ties UnionFoun datio n, Ne w 3 York, NY; Lawre nce S . Lus tberg , Ali cia L . 4 Banno n, Gi bbons , P.C ., Ne wark, NJ; Micha el 5 Ratne r, Gi tanja li Gu tierr ez, E milouMacC lean, 6 Shaya na Ka didal , Cen ter f or Co nstit ution al 7 Right s, Ne w Yor k, NY ; Bet h Har oules , Art hur 8 Eisen berg, New York Civil Libe rties Unio n 9 Found ation , NewYork , NY, on th e bri ef ), for 10 Plain tiffs -Appe llees -Cros s-App ellan ts . 11 12 13 14 WE S L E Y , Circu it Ju dge : 15 The C entra l Int ellig ence Agenc y (“C IA”), the Depar tment 16 of Ju stice (“DO J”), and i ts co mpone nt Of fice of Le gal 17 Couns el (“ OLC”) (col lecti vely the “ Gover nment ”) ap peal from 18 a por tion of anOcto ber 1 , 201 0 jud gmentof t he Un ited 19 State s Dis trictCour t forthe South ern D istri ct ofNew York 20 (Hell erste in, J .), r equir ing t he Go vernment t o dis close , 21 pursu ant t o the Free dom o f Inf ormat ion A ct (“ FOIA” ), 22 informatio n red actedfromtwo memor anda prepa red b y the OLC. 23 The G overnment conte nds t hat t he re dacti ons a re ju stifi ed 24 underFOIAbeca use t he in forma tion perta ins t o a h ighly 25 class ified , act ive i ntell igenc e met hod. We c onclu de th at 26 the G overnment may w ithho ld th is in forma tion underFOIA 27 Exemp tion 1. W e thu s rev erse the d istri ct co urt’s judgment 28 insof ar as it r equir ed di sclos ure. 29 The Americ an Ci vil L ibert ies U nion (“ACL U”), Cente r for 31 Const ituti onal Right s, In corpo rated , Phy sicia ns fo r Hum an 2 Right s, Ve teran s forComm on Se nse, and Vetera ns fo r Pea ce 3 (coll ectiv ely “ Plain tiffs ”) ap peal from the s ame j udgme nt 4 insof ar as it u pheldthe Gover nment ’s wi thhol ding of re cords 5 relat ing t o the CIA’ s use of t he En hance d Int errog ation 6 Techn ique (“EIT ”) ofwate rboar ding and aphot ograp h of high7 value deta inee Abu Z ubayd ah, t aken while he w as inCIA 8 custo dy ab road. Pla intif fs co ntendthatthe recor ds an d 9 photo graphmay not b e wit hheldunde r eit her F OIA E xempt ion 1 10 or 3 becau se th e Pre siden t has decl ared the p racti ce of 11 water board ing i llega l andthe Gover nmenthas faile d to 12 justi fy ad equat ely i ts wi thhol ding of th e pho togra ph. We 13 disag ree a nd ho ld th at th e Pre siden t’s d eclar ationand 14 prohi bitio n of the f uture use of wa terbo ardin g do not a ffect 15 the G overnment’ s oth erwis e val id au thori ty towith hold the 16 recor ds un der E xempt ion 3 . We agre e wit h the dist rict court 17 that both the r ecord s andphot ograp h are exempt fr om 18 discl osure unde r FOI A Exe mptio n 3 a nd th us af firm that part 19 of th e jud gment . 20 BACKGROUND 21 On Oc tober7, 2 003, Plain tiffs subm itteda FO IA re quest 22 to th e CIA , DOJ , andothe r fed eral agenc ies, seeki ng th e

41 discl osure of r ecord s con cerni ng (1 ) the trea tmentof 2 detai nees; (2) the d eaths of d etain ees while in Un ited 3 State s cus tody; and (3) t he re nditi on, s ince Septe mber 11, 4 2001, of d etain ees a nd ot her i ndivi duals to c ountr ies k nown 5 to employ tortu re orille gal i nterr ogati on me thods . On 6 Janua ry 31 , 200 5, Pl ainti ffs s erveda FO IA re queston t he 7 OLC, incor porat ing b y ref erenc e the ir Oc tober7, 2 003 8 reque st an d enumerat ing anon- exhau stive listof d ocume nts 9 falli ng wi thin the s cope of Pl ainti ffs’ reque st. 10 Withi n a y ear o f eac h request, Plai ntiff s fil ed 11 separ ate c ompla ints seeki ng tocomp el th e Gov ernme nt to 12 relea se an y res ponsi ve do cumen ts ithad withh eld f rom 13 discl osure . Wi th re spectto t he fi rst a ction , the dist rict 14 courtorde red t he Go vernment t o pro duce or id entif y all 15 recor ds re spons ive t o Pla intif fs’ r eques t. ACLU v. Dep’t o f 16 Def. , 339 F. S upp. 2d 50 1, 50 5 (S. D.N.Y . 200 4). Since that 17 time, the Gover nmenthas discl osed thous ands of do cumen ts in 18 respo nse t o Pla intif fs’ F OIA r eques ts. 19 I. Fa cts and Procedu ral H istory Rel evantto the Government’s 20 Appea l 21 Amongthe documents discl osed by th e Gov ernme nt ar e 22 four memor anda autho red b y the OLC betwe en Au gust 1, 20 02 23 and M ay 30 , 200 5, an alyzi ng le gal questi ons w ith r espec t to 51 the a pplic ationof E ITs t o det ainee s hel d in CIA c ustod y 2 abroa d. T he Go vernment i nitia lly w ithhe ld th ese memora nda 3 in fu ll, b ut su bsequ ently , on April 16, 2009, rele ased 4 uncla ssifi ed ve rsion s of the memora nda w ith l imite d 5 redac tions . The c lassi fied informatio n at issue in t he 6 Gover nment ’s ap peal is di scuss ed intwo of th ese memora nda, 7 datedMay 10, 2 005 a nd Ma y 30, 2005 , res pecti vely. The 8 Gover nmentreda cted refer ences to t he cl assif ied 9 informatio n—alo ng wi th ot her i nform ationnot relev ant t o 10 this appea l—pur suantto F OIA E xempt ions 1 and3 onthe basis 11 that recor ds re latedto “ intel ligen ce me thods ,” 12 “inte llige nce a ctivi ties, ” andCIA “func tions ” are exempt 13 from discl osure . The part ies f iled cross -moti ons f or 1 14 summa ry ju dgmen t wit h reg ard t o the se re dacti ons f rom t he 15 OLC memora nda. 16 The d istri ct co urt r eview ed th e unr edact ed OL C

Exemption 1 provides for the nondisclosure of matters that 1 are “(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1). Exemption 3 provides for the nondisclosure of matters that are “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute,” provided that the statute “requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue” or “establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.” Id. § 552(b)(3).

61 memor anda in a serie s of ex pa rte , in camera sessi ons. It 2 also revie wed s evera l dec larat ions from high- level exec utive 3 branc h off icial s sup porti ng th e Gov ernme nt’s withh oldin g of 4 the r edact ed in forma tion. At the f irst sessi on, t he 5 distr ict c ourt issue d a p relim inaryruli ng th at al l butone 6 of th e ref erenc es tothe class ifiedinfo rmati on mu st be 7 discl osed, with out e xplai ning why i t tre ated that sole 8 refer ence diffe rentl y. W ith r espec t to the o ther 9 refer ences , the dist rict courtheldthatpubl icly discl osing 10 that informatio n wou ld re veal not a n int ellig ence metho d but 11 only a sou rce o f the CIA’ s aut horit y. T he di stric t cou rt 12 also foundthatthe refer ences are so ge neral in n ature that 13 theirdisc losur e wou ld no t compromi se na tiona l sec urity . 14 The d istri ct co urt n evert heles s permitte d the Gove rnmen t to 15 submi t add ition al de clara tions just ifyin g its posi tion that 16 the i nform ationwas exemp t fro m dis closu re. 17 Durin g a s ubsequent in camerasess ion, the d istri ct 18 courtreaf firme d its prel imina ry ru ling and e xplai ned t hat 19 it vi ewed the c lassi fied informatio n as a “so urce of 20 autho rity” for inter rogat ion r atherthana “methodof 21 inter rogat ion.” As acomp romis e, ho wever , the dist rict 22 courtoffe red t o all ow th e Gov ernme nt torepl ace r efere nces

71 to th e cla ssifi ed in forma tion with alter nativ e lan guage 2 meantto p reser ve th e mea ning of th e tex t. T he di stric t 3 courtackn owled ged t he na tiona l sec urityconc erns 4 poten tiall y rai sed b y the disc losur e of some of th e 5 class ifiedinfo rmati on, b ut ne verth eless orde red t hat t he 6 Gover nmenteith er di sclos e the info rmati on orcomp ly wi th 7 the c ourt’ s pro posedcomp romis e. T he di stric t cou rt al so 8 order ed th at re feren ces t o the clas sifie d inf ormat ion i n the 9 trans criptof t he fi rst ex pa rte , in cameraproc eedin g be 10 discl osed or ot herwi se re lease d in accor dance withthe 11 compr omise . Th e dis trictcour t mem orial ized its o ral r uling 12 in a December 2 9, 20 09 or der. The Gover nmentnow appea ls 13 from that order . 14 II. Facts and P rocedural Histo ry Re levan t to Plain tiffs ’ 15 Cross -Appe al 16 17 Many of th e doc ument s rel easedby t he Go vernment i n 18 respo nse t o Pla intif fs’ F OIA r eques ts re late to th e use of 19 EITs. Durin g the cour se ofthis liti gatio n, th e Pre siden t 20 prohi bitedthe futur e use of c ertai n EIT s, in cludi ng 21 water board ing, forme rly a uthor ized for u se onhigh -valu e 22 detai nees. On May 7 , 200 9, th e dis trictcour t ord ered the 2

On January 22, 2009, the President issued an executive 2 order terminating the CIA’s detention and interrogation program 81 Gover nmentto c ompil e a l ist o f doc ument s rel ated to th e 2 conte nts o f 92 destr oyed video tapes of d etain ee 3 inter rogat ions that occur red b etwee n Apr il an d Dec ember2002 4 and which wouldothe rwise have beenresp onsiv e to 5 Plain tiffs ’ FOI A requests . Pu rsuan t to that order , the CIA 6 ident ified580 documents and s elect ed a sampl e of 65 7 documents for t he di stric t cou rt torevi ew fo r pot entia l 8 relea se. Speci fical ly, t he sample recor ds co mpris e: 9 • 53 ca bles (oper ation al co mmuni catio ns) b etwee n CIA 10 headquarte rs an d an inter rogat ion f acili ty; 11 • 3 ema ils p ostda ting the v ideot apes’ dest ructi on; 12 • 2 logbooks deta ilingobse rvati ons o f int errog ation 13 sessi ons; 14 • 1 setof h andwr ittennote s fro m a meetin g bet ween a 15 CIA e mploy ee an d a C IA at torne y; 16 • 2 mem orand a con taini ng de scrip tions of t he co ntent s 17 of th e vid eotap es; 18 • 1 setof h andwr ittennote s tak en du ring a rev iew o f 19 the v ideot apes; 20 • 2 rec ords summa rizin g det ails of wa terbo ard e xposu res 21 from the d estro yed v ideot apes; and 22 • 1 pho togra ph ofAbu Zubay dah d ated Octob er 11 , 200 2.

and mandating that individuals in United States custody “not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2-22.3.” Exec. Order No. 13,491, 74 Fed. Reg. 4,893, 4,894 (Jan. 22, 2009). Moreover, in an April 29, 2009 news conference, the President explained the basis for his ban on the use of waterboarding: “[W]aterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don’t think that’s just my opinion; that’s the opinion of many who’ve examined the topic. And that’s why I put an end to these practices.” President Barack Obama, News Conference by thePresident (Apr. 29, 2009), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/news-conference-president-4292009. 91 2 The G overnment withh eld t hese recor ds pu rsuan t to FOIA 3 Exemp tions 1 an d 3, and t he pa rties file d cro ss-mo tions for 4 summa ry ju dgmen t wit h reg ard t o whe ther the r ecord s wer e 5 exemp t fro m dis closu re. 3 6 The G overnment defen ded i ts wi thhol ding of th e rec ords 7 with three decl arati ons o f the n-CIADire ctor Leon Panet ta. 8 The d eclar ation s exp laine d tha t the reco rds c onsis t 9 prima rily of co mmuni catio ns toCIA headquarte rs fr om a 10 cover t CIAfaci lity where inte rroga tions were bein g 11 condu cted, and inclu de “s ensit ive i ntell igenc e and 12 opera tiona l inf ormat ion c oncer ning inter rogat ions of Ab u 13 Zubay dah.” Panet ta De cl. ¶ 5, June 8 , 200 9. W ith r espec t 14 to Ex empti on 3, the decla ratio ns explain ed th at, i f 15 discl osed, the recor ds wo uld “ revea l int ellig ence sourc es 16 and method s” employe d by the C IA, a s wel l as “the 17 organ izati on an d fun ction s of the C IA, i nclud ing t he co nduct 18 of cl andes tine intel ligen ce ac tivit ies t o col lect 19 intel ligen ce fr om human s ource s usi ng in terro gatio n 20 metho ds.” Id. ¶¶ 3 2, 35 . Wi th re spectto E xempt ion 1 , the

The Government also withheld portions of the records 3 pursuant to other FOIA Exemptions. Plaintiffs do not challenge those withholdings on appeal. 101 decla ratio ns as serte d tha t the reco rds w ere p roper ly 2 class ifiedpurs uant to Ex ecuti ve Or der N o. 12 ,958 and t hat 3 theirdisc losur e cou ld re asona bly b e exp ectedto r esultin 4 harm to na tiona l sec urity . 5 In re spons e, Pl ainti ffs a rguedthatthe EITs were not 6 “inte llige nce method s” wi thin the meanin g of the C IA’s 7 withh oldin g aut horit ies b ecaus e the y hadbeenrepu diate d, 8 and, in th e cas e of water board ing, decla red u nlawf ul bythe 9 Presi dent. Pla intif fs al so ar gued that the C IA ha d fai led 10 to pr ovide any expla natio n forwith holdi ng th e pho togra ph of 11 Abu Z ubayd ah un der e itherExemption1 or3. 12 On Se ptemb er 30 , 200 9, th e dis trictcour t rev iewedthe 13 photo graphand a por tion of th e sample r ecord s in an ex 14 parte , in camerasess ion. The distr ict c ourt made 15 preli minar y rul ings uphol ding the G overnment’ s non discl osure 16 of al l butone document. Thatdocument is no t at issue in 17 Plain tiffs ’ cro ss-ap peal. Wit h res pect to th e pho togra ph of 18 Abu Z ubayd ah, t he Go vernment a ssert ed th at itwas “actu ally 19 a CIAphot o of a per son i n cus tody, ” andthe courtacce pted 20 the G overnment’ s pos itionthata ph otogr aph o f a d etain ee 21 revea ls “alot more informatio n” th an th e det ainee ’s 22 ident ity. Duri ng th e pub lic h earin g, th e dis trictcour t

111 rejec ted P laint iffs’ argument that the P resid ent’s 2 decla ratio n was a su ffici ent b asis for r eject ing t he 3 Gover nment ’s po sitio n. T he di stric t cou rt explain ed th at it 4 would“dec line to ru le onthe quest ion o f leg alityor 5 illeg alityin t he co ntextof aFOIArequ est.” J.A . 110 5-06. 6 Rebuf fing Plain tiffs ’ arg umentthatthe photoshou ld be 7 produ ced b ecaus e the Gove rnmen t off ered no ju stifi catio n for 8 its w ithho lding , the dist rict courtsust ainedthe 9 withh oldin g andexpl ainedthat“the imag e of a per son i n a 10 photo graphis a nothe r asp ect o f inf ormat ion t hat i s 11 impor tant in in telli gence gath ering .” J .A. 1 115. 12 The d istri ct co urt memori alize d its ruli ngs i n an 13 Octob er 13 , 200 9 ord er. In su stain ing t he wi thhol ding of 14 the r ecord s und er FO IA Ex empti on 3, the distr ict c ourt 15 concl uded that the C IA ha d sat isfie d its burd en ofshow ing 16 that the r eleas e of the r ecord s cou ld re asona bly b e exp ected 17 to le ad tounau thori zed d isclo sure of in telli gence sour ces 18 and method s. T he di stric t cou rt al so re jecte d Pla intif fs’ 19 argument t hat r ecord s rel atingto i llega l act iviti es ar e 20 beyon d the scop e of Exemp tion 3. 21 In a July 15, 2 010 o rder, the distr ict c ourt denie d 22 Plain tiffs ’ mot ion f or re consi derat ion o f its Octo ber 2 009

121 order . In do ing s o, th e dis trictcour t rea ffirmed it s vie w 2 that neith er st atuto ry la nguag e norcase law suppo rts 3 Plain tiffs ’ con tenti on th at th e leg alityof t he un derly ing 4 intel ligen ce so urce or me thod bears uponthe valid ity o f an 5 Exemp tion 3 wit hhold ing. 6 On Oc tober1, 2 010, the d istri ct co urt e ntere d par tial 7 final judgment pursu ant t o Fed eral Rule of Ci vil P rocedure 8 54(b) , gra ntingPlai ntiff s summary judgment w ith r egardto 9 the G overnment’ s wit hhold ing o f the clas sifie d inf ormat ion 10 in th e twoOLC memor anda, and grant ing t he Go vernment 11 summa ry ju dgmen t wit h reg ard t o the nond isclo sure of re cords 12 relat ed tothe conte nts o f the dest royedvide otape s andthe 13 photo graph . Plain tiffs limi t the ir cr oss-a ppeal to t hose 14 recor ds re flect ing t he CI A’s u se ofwate rboar ding and t o the 15 photo graphof Abu Zu bayda h. 16 DISCUSSION 17 The F reedo m of Informatio n Act“cal ls fo r bro ad 18 discl osure of G overnment recor ds.” CIA v . Sim s , 471 U.S. 19 159, 166 ( 1985) . Bu t pub lic d isclo sure of ce rtain 20 gover nmentreco rds m ay no t alw ays b e in the p ublicinte rest. 21 Thus, Cong ress provi ded t hat s ome r ecord s maybe w ithhe ld 22 from discl osure unde r anyof n ine e xempt ions defin ed in5

131 U.S.C . § 5 52(b) . Id. at 1 67. 2 An ag ency withh oldin g doc ument s res ponsi ve toa FO IA 3 reque st be ars t he bu rden of pr ovingthe appli cabil ity o f 4 claimed ex empti ons. Wilne r v. NSA , 592 F.3d60, 68 (2 d Cir . 5 2009) . “A ffida vits or de clara tions . . . giv ing r eason ably 6 detai led e xplan ation s whyany withh eld d ocume nts f all w ithin 7 an ex empti on ar e suf ficie nt tosust ain t he ag ency’ s bur den.” 8 Carney v. U.S. Dep’tof Justic e , 19 F.3d 807, 812 ( 2d Ci r. 9 1994) . We revi ew th e ade quacyof t he ag ency’ s 10 justi ficat ions de no vo . Wilne r , 592 F.3dat 7 3. I n the 11 natio nal s ecuri ty co ntext , how ever, we “ must accor d 12 subst antia l wei ghtto a n age ncy’s affi davitconc ernin g the 13 detai ls ofthe class ifiedstat us ofthe dispu ted r ecord .” 14 Wolf v. CIA , 473 F.3d370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007 ) (in terna l 15 quota tion marks omit ted); see a lso S ims , 471 U.S. at 1 79. 16 Summa ry ju dgmen t is appro priat e whe re th e age ncy a ffida vits 17 “desc ribe the j ustif icati ons f or no ndisc losur e wit h 18 reaso nablyspec ific detai l, de monst rate that the i nform ation 19 withh eld l ogica lly f alls withi n the clai med e xempt ion, and 20 are n ot co ntrov ertedby e ithercont rary evide nce i n the 21 recor d norby e viden ce ofagen cy ba d fai th.” Wilne r , 592 22 F.3d at 73 . Ul timat ely, an ag ency may i nvoke a FO IA

141 exemp tion if it s jus tific ation“app ears logic al or 2 plaus ible. ” Id. (int ernal quot ationmark s omi tted) . 3 I. The Governme nt’s Appea l—TheOLC Memoranda 4 The G overnment conte nds t hat t he in forma tion redac ted 5 from the O LC me moran da ma y be withh eld f rom d isclo sure under 6 eithe r FOI A Exe mptio n 1 o r 3. In o ur vi ew, E xempt ion 1 7 resol ves t he ma tter easil y. Exe mptio n 1 p ermit s the 4 8 Gover nmentto w ithho ld in forma tion “spec ifica lly a uthor ized 9 undercrit eria estab lishe d by an Ex ecuti ve or der t o be kept 10 secre t in the i ntere st ofnati onal defen se orfore ign 11 polic y” ifthatinfo rmati on ha s bee n “pr operl y cla ssifi ed 12 pursu ant t o suc h Exe cutiv e ord er.” 5 U. S.C. § 552 (b)(1 ). 13 The G overnment conte nds t hat t he re dacte d inf ormat ion w as 14 prope rly c lassi fied underExec utive Orde r No. 12,9 58, a s 15 amend ed, which autho rizedthe class ifica tion of in forma tion 16 conce rning“int ellig ence activ ities (inc ludin g spe cial 17 activ ities ), in telli gence sour ces o r met hods, or 18 crypt ology .” E xec. OrderNo. 12,95 8 § 1 .5(c) , 60 Fed. Reg. 19 19,82 5 (Ap r. 17 , 199 5), as am ended by Exec . Ord er No . Because the FOIA Exemptions are independent of each other, 4 we need only discuss why we conclude that the Government may invoke FOIA Exemption 1 to justify withholding the redacted information in the OLC memoranda. See Wilner , 592 F.3d at 72 (citing Larson v. Dep’t of State , 565 F.3d 857, 862-63 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). 151 13,29 2, 68 Fed. Reg. 15,3 15 (M ar. 2 5, 20 03) ( herei nafte r 2 “Exec . Ord er No . 12, 958”) . Exe cutiv e Ord er No . 12, 958 a lso 5 3 requi red a s a c ondit ion t o cla ssifi catio n tha t an origi nal 4 class ifica tion autho rity “dete rmine [] th at th e una uthor ized 5 discl osure of t he in forma tion reaso nablycoul d be expec ted 6 to re sult in damage to th e nat ional secu rity” and “is a ble 7 to id entif y or descr ibe t he damage. ” Id. § 1. 1(a)( 4), 6 8 Fed. Reg. at 15 ,315. 6 8 9 The d istri ct co urt h eld t hat t he ex empti on wa s 10 inapp licab le be cause , in its v iew, the i nform ationpert ains 11 to a “sour ce ofauth ority ” rat her t han a“met hod o f 12 inter rogat ion.” J.A . 117 4-75. On appea l, as it d id inthe 7 13 distr ict c ourt, the Gover nmentcont ends that the i nform ation 14 perta ins t o an intel ligen ce me thod and a n int ellig ence

Executive Order No. 12,958 and all amendments thereto have 5 since been superseded by Executive Order No. 13,526, 75 Fed. Reg. 707 (Dec. 29, 2009). For purposes of Exemption 1, the propriety of a classification decision is considered under the criteria of the executive order that applied when the decision was made. See Halpern v. FBI , 181 F.3d 279, 289 (2d Cir. 1999). The parties do not dispute whether the remaining criteria 6 for proper classification have been satisfied. See Exec. Order No. 12,958 § 1.1(a), 68 Fed. Reg. at 15,315. Addressing only the applicability of Exemption 3, the 7 district court concluded that the information does not pertain to an “intelligence method” and therefore was not exempt. It made no express ruling on whether the information relates to an “intelligence activity” under FOIA Exemption 1. 161 activ ity, and t hat e ach c atego ry pr ovide s a b asis for 2 class ifica tion underExec utive Orde r No. 12,9 58. In su pport 3 of th is co ntent ion, the G overnment has s ubmit ted 4 decla ratio ns fr om Ge neral Jame s L. Jones , the n-Ass istan t to 5 the P resid ent f or Na tiona l Sec urityand Natio nal S ecuri ty 6 Advis or; G enera l Mic hael V. Ha yden, then -Dire ctor of th e 7 CIA; Leon Panet ta, t hen-D irect or ofthe CIA; and W endy M. 8 Hilto n, In forma tion Revie w Off icer for D etain ee-Re lated 9 Matte rs fo r the CIA. 10 Basedon o ur ex pa rte andin c amerarevi ew ofthe 11 unred actedOLC memor anda and t he Go vernment’s clas sifie d 12 decla ratio ns, w e agr ee wi th th e Gov ernme nt th at th e red acted 13 informatio n was prop erly class ifiedbeca use i t per tains to 14 an in telli gence acti vity. Pla intif fs co ncede that , eve n if 15 we we re tochar acter ize t he in forma tion as a “sour ce of 16 autho rity, ” “wi thhol ding [a] s ource of a uthor ity i tselfis 17 . . . prop er ifdisc losin g it wouldreve al . . . 18 intel ligen ce so urces , met hods, or a ctivi ties. ” Pl s.’ B r. 19 40-41 . We give subs tanti al we ight to th e Gov ernme nt’s 20 decla ratio ns, which estab lish that discl osingthe redac ted 21 porti ons o f the OLC memor anda wouldreve al th e exi stenc e and 22 scope of ahigh ly cl assif ied, activ e int ellig ence activ ity.

171 See D oherty v. U.S. Dep’tof Justic e , 775 F.2d49, 52 (2 d 2 Cir. 1985) . 3 We re ject any n otionthatto s ustai n the Gove rnmen t’s 4 asser tion that the w ithhe ld in forma tion conce rns aprot ected 5 “inte llige nce a ctivi ty” u nder Execu tive OrderNo. 12,95 8 is 6 effec tivel y to exemp t the CIA from FOIA’ s man date. In 7 respo nse t o Pla intif fs’ F OIA r eques ts an d rel ated court 8 order s, th e Gov ernme nt ha s alr eady produ ced s ubsta ntial 9 informatio n abo ut it s use of E ITs, inclu ding almos t all of 10 the c onten ts ofthe OLC memora nda. Withrega rd tothe 11 limit ed ma teria l it has w ithhe ld fr om di sclos ure, the 12 Gover nmenthas susta ined its b urdenby “ givin g rea sonab ly 13 detai led e xplan ation s” ofhow the i nform ationpert ains to a 14 class ifiedinte llige nce a ctivi ty. Carney , 19 F.3d at 81 2. 15 On ap peal, Plai ntiff s do not d isput e tha t the 16 Gover nmenthas estab lishe d tha t pub lic d isclo sure of th e 17 redac ted i nform ation“rea sonab ly co uld b e exp ectedto r esult 18 in damage to th e nat ional secu rity. ” Ex ec. O rder No. 1 2,958 19 § 1.1 (a)(4 ), 68 Fed. Reg. at 1 5,315 . No r do we. “[W]e have 20 consi stent ly de ferre d to execu tive affid avits pred ictin g 21 harm to th e nat ional secu rity, and have foundit u nwise to 22 under take searc hing judic ial r eview .” Ctr. for Nat’l Sec.

181 Studi es v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justi ce , 331 F.3d918, 927 (D.C. 2 Cir. 2003) . “Recogn izingthe relat ive c ompet encie s of the 3 execu tive and j udici ary, we be lieve thatit i s badlaw and 4 bad p olicyto s econd -gues s the pred ictiv e jud gment s mad e by 5 the g overnment’ s int ellig ence agenc ies” regar ding wheth er 6 discl osure of t he in forma tion redac ted f rom t he OL C 7 memor anda wouldpose a th reat to na tiona l sec urity . Wil ner , 8 592 F .3d a t 76 (inte rnal quota tion marks omit ted). 9 The G overnment’ s dec larat ions descr ibe i n per suasi ve 10 detai l howreve alingthe redac ted i nform ationwoul d cau se 11 excep tiona lly g rave harm to na tiona l sec urityby ( 1) 12 “dama ging on-go ing a ctivi ties and r elati onshi ps wi th fo reign 13 intel ligen ce li aisonpart ners, whic h are of u tmost 14 impor tance to t he CI A’s o verse as in telli gence oper ation s,” 15 Hilto n Dec l. ¶ 9(a), May 7, 20 10; ( 2) “a lerti ng ou r 16 adver sarie s of the e xiste nce o f [th e] in telli gence meth od, 17 whichwoul d giv e the m the oppo rtuni ty toalte r the ir co nduct 18 to ad apt t o thi s newinfo rmati on an d mak e fut ure 19 intel ligen ce op erati ons m ore d anger ous a nd le ss ef fecti ve,” 20 id. ¶ 9( b); a nd (3 ) “in creas ing t he ri sks f or al l 21 indiv idual s inv olvedin t hose opera tions , inc ludin g CIA 22 offic ers a nd as sets, ” id. ¶ 9( c). Accor ding subst antia l

191 weigh t anddefe rence to t he CI A’s d eclar ation s, see D oherty , 2 775 F .2d a t 52, we c onclu de th at itis b oth l ogica l and 3 plaus ible that the d isclo sure of th e inf ormat ion p ertai ning 4 to a CIA i ntell igenc e act ivitywoul d harm nat ional secu rity. 5 Furth ermor e, we reje ct th e dis trictcour t’s s ugges tion 6 that certa in po rtion s of the r edact ed in forma tion are s o 7 gener al inrela tion to pr eviou sly d isclo sed a ctivi ties of 8 the C IA th at th eir d isclo sure wouldnot compr omise nati onal 9 secur ity. It i s tru e tha t the Gove rnmen t has disc losed 10 signi fican t asp ects of th e CIA ’s di scont inueddete ntionand 11 inter rogat ion p rogram, bu t its decl arati ons e xplai n in great 12 detai l howthe withh eld i nform ationpert ains to in telli gence 13 activ ities unre latedto t he di scont inuedprog ram. Hilt on 14 Decl. ¶ 6. Andevenif t he re dacte d inf ormat ion s eems 15 innoc uous in th e con text of wh at is alre ady k nown by th e 16 publi c, “[ m]ino r det ails of in telli gence info rmati on ma y 17 revea l mor e inf ormat ion t han t heir appar ent i nsign ifica nce 18 sugge sts b ecaus e, mu ch li ke a piece of j igsawpuzz le, e ach 19 detai l mayaid in pi ecingtoge ther otherbits of i nform ation 20 even when the i ndivi dual piece is n ot ofobvi ous i mport ance 21 in it self. ” Wilne r , 592 F.3dat 7 3 (al terat ions and 22 inter nal quotat ion m arks omitt ed); see a lso S ims , 471 U.S.

201 at 17 8; ACLU v. U .S. D ep’t of De fense , 628 F.3d612, 625 2 (D.C. Cir. 2011 ). Again, it i s bot h log ical and p lausi ble 3 that discl osure of t he re dacte d inf ormat ion w ould jeopa rdize 4 the C IA’s abili ty toconduct i ts in telli gence oper ation s and 5 work with forei gn in telli gence liai son p artne rs. 6 Both parti es co ntendthatthe distr ict c ourt’ s 7 compr omise , whe reby the G overnment couldavoi d pub lic 8 discl osure of t he re dacte d inf ormat ion b y sub stitu ting a 9 purpo rtedl y neu tral phras e composedby t he co urt, excee ded 10 the c ourt’ s aut horit y und er FO IA. We ag ree. FOIAdoes not 11 permi t cou rts t o compel a n age ncy t o pro duce anyth ing o ther 12 than respo nsive , non -exempt re cords . See 5 U.S .C. 13 § 552 (a)(4 )(B). If the G overnment alter ed ormodi fied the 14 OLC memora nda i n acc ordan ce wi th th e compromi se, t he 15 Gover nmentwoul d eff ectiv ely b e “cr eatin g” 16 documents— somet hing FOIA does not o bliga te ag encie s to do. 17 See, e.g. , Kissi nger v. Reporte rs Comm. for Fr eedomof t he 18 Press , 445 U.S. 136, 152 (1980 ); Pierc e & S teven s Chem. 19 Corp. v. U .S. Consum er Pr od. S afety Comm ’n , 585 F.2d1382 , 20 1388 (2d C ir. 1 978). Mor eover , giv en th e “re lativ e 21 compe tenci es ofthe execu tive and j udici ary,” the distr ict 22 courterre d in “seco nd-gu ess[i ng]” the e xecut ive’s judgment

211 of th e harm to natio nal s ecuri ty th at wo uld l ikelyresu lt 2 from discl osure , by craft ing s ubsti tute text that— in it s own 3 view—wouldavoi d the harm s tha t cou ld re sult from discl osure 4 of th e inf ormat ion i n ful l. See Wilner , 592 F.3dat 7 6. 5 The d istri ct co urt’s appa rent relia nce o n the 6 Class ifiedInfo rmati on Pr ocedu res A ct (“ CIPA” ), 18 U.S. C. 7 app. 3, §§1-16 , as a bas is fo r the comp romis e was 8 erron eous. Con traryto t he di stric t cou rt’s asser tion, 8 9 CIPA appli es ex clusi vely to cr imina l cas es. See18 U .S.C. 10 app. 3, §§2-3, 5. Indee d, CI PA is codi fied as th e thi rd 11 appen dix t o Tit le 18 of t he U. S. Co de, which conce rns crim es 12 and c rimin al pr ocedu re , andwe h ave f ound no ca se la w 13 suppo rtingthe distr ict c ourt’ s ado ptionof C IPA i n a F OIA 14 conte xt su ch as this . 9

Although the district court referred to the “CISA, 8 Confidential Information Securities Act,” J.A. 1184-85, it appears that the court intended to refer to CIPA because there is no Confidential Information Securities Act and the court described the statute as providing a procedure for the introduction of classified information at trial. Id. The procedures of CIPA contrast sharply with those of 9 FOIA. For example, under CIPA, when the court authorizes a defendant to disclose classified information during trial, the Government may move for the substitution of a summary of such classified information in lieu of the information itself, 18 U.S.C. app. 3, § 6(c), “to harmonize a defendant’s right to obtain and present exculpatory material upon his trial and the government’s right to protect classified material in the national interest,” United States v. Pappas , 94 F.3d 795, 799 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Significantly, the 221 The G overnment suffi cient ly explain ed th at th e wit hheld 2 informatio n per tains to a n “in telli gence acti vity” and that 3 discl osure of t he in forma tion wouldlike ly re sult in ha rm to 4 natio nal s ecuri ty. The G overnment’ s dec larat ions are n ot 5 contr adict ed bythe recor d, an d the re is no e viden ce ofbad 6 faithby t he Go vernment i n thi s reg ard. Acco rding ly, t he 7 Gover nmenthas susta ined its b urdenof p rovin g tha t the 8 informatio n red actedfromthe OLC memora nda i s exe mpt f rom 9 discl osure unde r FOI A Exe mptio n 1. See Wilner , 592 F.3dat 10 73. We th erefo re re verse the distr ict c ourt’ s jud gment 11 insof ar as it r equir ed di sclos ure o f the info rmati on—ei ther 12 in fu ll orin a ccord ance with the d istri ct co urt’s 13 compr omise—in t he OL C mem orand a andthe trans criptof t he 14 distr ict c ourt’ s ex pa rte , in cameraproc eedin g. 15 II. Materi als a t Iss ue inPlai ntiff s’ Cross-A ppeal 16 The d istri ct co urt a greedwiththe Gover nmentthatthe 17 recor ds re latedto t he co ntent s of destr oyed video tapes of 18 detai nee i nterr ogati ons a nd a photo graphof h igh-v alue

Government retains ultimate control and may prevent a criminal defendant from disclosing classified information, with the consequence of the court either dismissing the indictment or taking another action adverse to the prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. app. 3, § 6(e). By contrast, the Government cannot walk away from a FOIA case in order to avoid disclosure of classified information. 231 detai nee Abu Zu bayda h in CIA c ustod y maybe w ithhe ld fr om 2 discl osure unde r FOI A Exe mptio n 3. Plai ntiff s cha lleng e the 3 withh oldin g of only those reco rds r elati ng tothe CIA’s use 4 of wa terbo ardin g andthe photo graph . 5 Exemp tion 3 permits the G overnment to wi thhol d 6 informatio n fro m pub lic d isclo sure provi ded t hat: (1) t he 7 informatio n is “spec ifica lly e xempt ed fr om di sclos ure b y 8 statu te”; and ( 2) th e exe mptio n sta tute “requ ires that the 9 matte rs be with held from the p ublicin s uch amann er as to 10 leave no d iscre tion on th e iss ue” o r “es tabli shes parti cular 11 crite ria f or wi thhol ding or re fers to pa rticu lar t ypes of 12 matte rs tobe w ithhe ld.” 5 U. S.C. § 552 (b)(3 ); see S ims , 13 471 U .S. a t 167 -68. Here , the Gove rnmen t con tends thatthe 14 recor ds an d pho togra ph pe rtainto a n “in telli gence meth od” 15 undersect ion 1 02A(i )(1) of th e Nat ional Secu rity Act o f 16 1947 (“NSA ”) an d CIA“fun ction s” un der s ectio n 6 o f the 17 Centr al In telli gence Act of 19 49, which inclu de th e 18 colle ctionof i ntell igenc e thr ough humansour ces, see50 19 U.S.C . § 4 03-4a (d). Pla intif fs donot dispu te th at th ese 1 0

Section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, 1 0 as amended, 50 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. , requires the Director of National Intelligence to “protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.” 50 U.S.C. § 403-1(i)(1). Section 6 of the Central Intelligence Act of 1949, as amended, 50 U.S.C. § 403 et seq. , provides that the CIA shall be exempted 241 statu tes qualif y as exemp tion statu tes u nder Exemp tion 3. 2 See L arson , 565 F.3dat 8 65; Baker v. CIA , 580 F.2d664, 667 3 (D.C. Cir. 1978 ). Thus, our only remai ning inqui ry is 4 wheth er th e wit hheldmate rial relat es toan i ntell igenc e 5 metho d or funct ions of th e CIA . Larso n , 565 F.3dat 8 65; 6 Phill ippi v. CIA , 546 F.2d1009 , 101 5 n.1 4 (D. C. Ci r. 7 1976) . 1 1 8 A. The InterrogationReco rds 9 Plain tiffs cont end t hat t he re cords rega rdingthe use 10 of wa terbo ardin g in parti cularinst ances do n ot re late to an 11 “inte llige nce method ” bec ause the P resid ent h as de clare d the 12 pract ice o f wat erboa rdingille gal. Rely ing o n the Supr eme 13 Court ’s de cisio n in CIA v . Sim s , Pla intif fs ar gue t hat t he 14 CIA m ay de cline to d isclo se on ly re cords rela ting to th ose 15 intel ligen ce me thods thatfall with in th e CIA ’s ch arter . 16 Plain tiffs argu e tha t bec ause an il legal acti vity canno t be 17 said to “f all w ithinthe Agenc y’s m andat e to condu ct fo reign

from “the provisions of any other law which require the publication or disclosure” of the “functions” of the Agency. 50 U.S.C. § 403g. Because, as previously discussed, FOIA exemptions are 1 1 independent of each other, we explain only our conclusion that the Government may invoke FOIA exemption 3 to justify withholding the interrogation records and the photograph. See supra note 4. We do not address the possible coverage provided these materials by Exemption 1. 251 intel ligen ce,” Sims , 471 U.S. at 1 69, w aterb oardi ng ca nnot 2 be an“int ellig ence metho d” wi thin the meanin g of the C IA’s 3 withh oldin g aut horit ies. 1 2 4 We donot agree . Simsoffe rs nosupp ort f or 5 Plain tiffs ’ pro posedlimi tatio n upo n the CIA’ s abi lity to 6 prote ct in forma tion relat ing t o int ellig ence metho ds. On 7 the c ontra ry, t he Sims Courtemph asize d tha t the NSA “vest ed 8 in th e Dir ectorof C entra l Int ellig ence very broadauth ority 9 to pr otectall sourc es ofinte llige nce i nform ationfrom 10 discl osure ,” an d tha t jud icial “nar rowin g of this autho rity 11 not o nly c ontra venes the expre ss in tenti on ofCong ress, but 12 also overl ooks the p racti cal n ecess ities of m odern 13 intel ligen ce ga theri ng—th e ver y rea son C ongre ss en trust ed 14 this Agenc y wit h swe epingpowe r to prote ct it s ‘in telli gence 15 sourc es an d met hods. ’” Sims , 471 U.S. at 1 68–69 . Ac cordi ng 16 to th e Cou rt, t he “p lain meani ng” o f “in telli gence sour ces 17 and method s” inthis cont ext, “may not b e squ ared with any

Plaintiffs concede that an illegal act may produce 1 2 information that may be properly withheld under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3. Plaintiffs do not seek disclosure of information that may otherwise be classified for reasons apart from the fact that it would disclose details of the use of waterboarding. To the extent the records discuss such information, such as questions asked during an interrogation or intelligence gathered from an interrogation session, Plaintiffs agree that the information should be segregated and may remain classified. 261 limit ing d efini tion that goes beyon d the requ ireme nt th at 2 the i nform ationfall with in th e Age ncy’s mand ate t o con duct 3 forei gn in telli gence .” Id . at 169. 1 3 4 Here, Plai ntiff s arg ue th at th e pro visio n of the N SA 5 requi ring the D irect or ofNati onal Intel ligen ce to“ens ure 6 compl iance withthe Const ituti on an d law s of the U nited 7 State s,” see50 U .S.C. § 40 3-1(f )(4), deli mits the 8 Direc tor’s obli gatio n und er se ction102A (i)(1 ) to “prot ect 9 intel ligen ce so urces and metho ds fr om un autho rized 10 discl osure ,” see50 U .S.C. § 40 3-1(i )(1), and the 11 conco mitan t rig hts u nder FOIA to de cline to d isclo se. The 12 statu tory langu age d oes n ot, h oweve r, dr aw an y suc h 13 limit ation , andto d o so by ju dicia l dev ice w ould flout 14 Sims ’s cl ear d irect ive a gains t con stric ting the C IA’s broad 15 autho rity in th is do main. Aga in, Simsexpr esslyreje cted 16 any l imita tion on th e CIA ’s du ty toprot ect i nform ation 17 “beyo nd th e requirement t hat t he in forma tion fall withi n the 18 Agenc y’s m andat e to condu ct fo reigninte llige nce.” Sims , 19 471 U .S. a t 169 . Pl ainti ffs’ argument l acks suppo rt in 20 eithe r the stat ute’s textor i n the case law inter preti ng

The statutory provision at issue in Simswas a materially 1 3 identical precursor to section 102A(i)(1) of the NSA. See Sims , 471 U.S. at 167–68. 271 that text. 2 Moreo ver, we ar e war y of the p racti cal d iffic ultie s 3 that wouldlike ly ar ise w ere t he ca tegor y of prote ctabl e 4 intel ligen ce me thods circ umscr ibed as Pl ainti ffs p ropos e. 5 In FO IA ac tions in which the g overnment seeks to w ithho ld 6 informatio n rel ated to aninte llige nce method , an 7 informatio n off icer and t hen t he co urt w ould poten tiall y be 8 force d to engag e in a complex inqui ry todete rmine whet her 9 the g overnment has s uffic ientl y dem onstr ated the l egali ty of 10 the methodto j ustif y wit hhold ing. In t his r espec t, we 11 quest ion h ow th e cou rt an d the agen cy wo uld h andle vary ing 12 asses sment s of legal ity. Whatbeco mes o f inf ormat ion 13 conce rninga me thod that the P resid ent, on advice of 14 couns el, c onsid ers l egal, but whichis l ater decla red 15 unlaw ful b y a f edera l cou rt orby asubs equen t 16 admin istra tion? Rel atedl y, is the legal ity o f a methodto 17 be de termi ned a s of the t ime o f the meth od’s use o r maya 18 forwa rd-lo okingpros cript ion a lso a pply retro activ ely t o 19 preve nt re lianc e on an ex empti on? The m attercurr ently 20 befor e us helps illu strat e the poin t. E ven i f we assumed 21 that a Pre siden t canrend er aninte llige nce method“ill egal” 22 throu gh th e mer e iss uance of p ublicstat ement s, or , mor e

281 forma lly, throu gh ad optio n of an ex ecuti ve or der, and i f we 2 furth er as sumedthatPres identObam a’s E xecut ive O rder 3 coupl ed wi th hi s sta temen ts de scrib ing w aterb oardi ng as 4 “tort ure” were suffi cientin t his r egard , we wouldbe l eft 5 with the d iffic ult t ask o f det ermin ing what r etroa ctive 6 effec t, ifany, to a ssignthatdesi gnati on. In ou r vie w, 7 such an “i llega lity” inqu iry i s cle arly beyon d the scop e and 8 purpo se ofFOIA . See Wilne r , 592 F.3dat 7 7. 9 Final ly, w e als o not e tha t pri or co urts facedwith 10 simil ar qu estio ns ha ve de cline d to addre ss th e leg alityof 11 an in telli gence meth od as partof aFOIAanal ysis. In ACLU 12 v. U. S. Departm ent o f Defense , the Dist rict of Co lumbi a 13 Circu it re jecte d the veryargument raise d by Plain tiffs 14 here: thatan i nterr ogati on te chnique fo rmerl y aut horiz ed 15 for u se onhigh -valu e det ainee s is no lo nger a pro tecta ble 16 “inte llige nce method ” forFOIApurp oses if th e Pre siden t 17 bans its f uture use. See628 F.3d at 62 2. A fter notin g 18 that Sims “says noth ing s ugges ting that the c hange in t he 19 speci fic t echni ques of in telli gence gath eringby t he CI A 20 rende rs un prote cted sourc es an d met hods previ ouslyused ,” 21 the c ourt held that “the Presi dent’ s pro hibit ion o f the 22 futur e use of c ertai n int errog ationtech nique s . . . do es

291 not d imini sh th e gov ernme nt’s other wise validauth orityto 2 . . . with hold [info rmati on] f rom d isclo sure under 3 exemp tions 1 an d 3.” Id . 4 In Wilne r v. NSA , ourCour t con sider ed wh etherthe 5 gover nmentcoul d ref use t o con firm or de ny th e exi stenc e of 6 recor ds ob taine d und er th e sin ce-di scont inuedTerr orist 7 Surve illan ce Pr ogram(“TS P”). 592 F.3d at 64 –65. The 8 plain tiffs in Wilne r clai med t hat t he go vernment h ad 9 illeg ally obtai ned i nform ationabou t the m thr ough the T SP. 10 They argue d tha t the NSA impro perlyrefu sed t o dis close this 11 informatio n bec ause any s uch r ecord s wou ld ha ve be en 12 obtai ned i n vio latio n of the U .S. C onsti tutio n. Id . at 77. 13 In co nclud ing t hat t he go vernment p roper ly wi thhel d the 14 informatio n at issue unde r FOI A Exe mptio n 3, we de cline d to 15 reach“the lega lity of th e und erlyi ng Te rrori st Su rveil lance 16 Progr am,” reaso ning that this quest ion w as “b eyondthe 17 scope ” of the p laint iffs’ FOIAacti on. Id . at 77. 18 We re cogni ze th at th e pla intif fs in Wilne r did not m ake 19 the p recis e arg umentadva nced here: thatthe statu tory 20 meani ng of“int ellig ence metho ds” p reclu des t he go vernment 21 from emplo ying that label for a tec hniqu e tha t the Pres ident 22 has d eclar ed tobe u nlawf ul an d thu s out side the C IA’s

301 chart er. But i n ourview , Wilne r ’s pr incip le is equa lly 2 appli cable here—a ju dicia l det ermin ationof t he le galit y of 3 water board ing i s bey ond t he sc ope o f thi s FOI A act ion. For 4 the f orego ing r eason s, we reje ct Pl ainti ffs’ argument t hat 5 the G overnment couldnot withh old i nform ationrela ting to 6 water board ing o n the grou nds t hat w aterb oardi ng is now 7 “ille gal” and t heref ore b eyondthe CIA’s mand ate. 8 Accor ding subst antia l wei ght t o the CIA’ s dec larat ions, 9 see Wolf , 473 F.3dat 3 74, w e hav e no diffi cultyin 10 concl udingthatthe recor ds inques tion, whic h we have 11 revie wed in camera , rel ate t o an intel ligen ce me thod withi n 12 the meanin g of the N SA, a nd, a ccord ingly , maybe w ithhe ld. 13 The p artie s agr ee th at wa terbo ardin g was an i nterr ogati on 14 metho d use d by the C IA inconn ectio n wit h its fore ign 15 intel ligen ce-ga theri ng ac tivit ies. Beca use t he CI A’s 16 decla ratio ns ar e notcont radic ted b y the reco rd or 17 underminedby a ny al legat ions of ba d fai th, the Gover nment 1 4 18 has s ustai ned i ts bu rden of pr ovingthatthe recor ds 19 relat ing t o the CIA’ s use of w aterb oardi ng ar e exe mpt f rom

In addition, Director Panetta confirmed that the records 1 4 were withheld not to suppress evidence of any unlawful conduct but rather to protect intelligence sources and methods. We accord a “presumption of good faith” to this declaration, Carney , 19 F.3d at 812. 311 discl osure unde r FOI A Exe mptio n 3. See Wilner , 592 F.3dat 2 73, 7 6-77. 3 B. The Pho tograph ofAbu Zubaydah 4 Plain tiffs cont end t hat t he CI A fai led t o pro vide any 5 justi ficat ion f or wi thhol ding a pho togra ph ofAbu Zubay dah 6 takenwhil e he was i n CIAcust ody a broadand that the p ost 7 hoc e xplan ation s off ered by th e Gov ernme nt’s couns el donot 8 suffi ce tojust ify t he wi thhol ding. We disag ree. In aJune 9 8, 20 09 un class ifieddecl arati on, D irect or Pa nettaexpl ained 10 that all o f the reco rds h e rev iewedin c onnec tion with his 11 invoc ationof F OIA E xempt ions 1 and3, i nclud ing t he 12 photo graph , are “rel ated to th e con tents of 9 2 des troye d 13 video tapes of d etain ee in terro gatio ns th at oc curre d bet ween 14 April and December 2 002.” Pan etta Decl. ¶ 3, June 8, 2 009. 15 Direc tor P anett a fur ther decla red t hat “ misce llane ous 16 documents” in t he sample recor ds, i nclud ing t he ph otogr aph, 17 “cont ain[] TOP SECRE T ope ratio nal i nform ationconc ernin g the 18 inter rogat ions” of Abu Zu bayda h. Id . ¶ 5 . Onappe al, t he 19 Gover nmenthas expan ded u pon D irect or Pa netta ’s 20 justi ficat ion f or wi thhol ding by explain ing t hat t he 21 photo graphnece ssari ly “r elate s to” an “ intel ligen ce so urce 22 or me thod” beca use i t rec ords Abu Z ubayd ah’s condi tion in

321 the p eriodduri ng wh ich h e was inte rroga ted. 2 We ha ve re viewe d the phot ograp h in camera . Ou r 3 exami natio n has beeninfo rmed by ou r con tempo raneo us re view 4 of ot her s ample reco rds. Like the distr ict c ourt, we 5 obser ve th at a photo graphdepi ctinga pe rson in CI A cus tody 6 discl oses far m ore i nform ationthanthe perso n’s i denti ty. 7 We ag ree w ith t he di stric t cou rt th at th e ima ge atissu e 8 here conve ys an“asp ect o f inf ormat ion t hat i s imp ortan t to 9 intel ligen ce ga theri ng,” J.A. 1115, and that this 10 informatio n nec essar ily “ relat es to ” an “inte llige nce s ource 11 or me thod. ” Th e Gov ernme nt’s justi ficat ion f or wi thhol ding 12 the p hotog raph is th us bo th “l ogica l andplau sible .” See 13 Wilne r , 592 F.3dat 7 5. M oreov er, D irect or Pa netta ’s 14 decla ratio n is entit led t o sub stant ial w eight , see Wolf, 473 15 F.3d at 37 4, an d thi s Cou rt mu st ad opt a“def erent ial 16 postu re inFOIAcase s reg ardin g the uniquely execu tive 17 purvi ew ofnati onal secur ity,” Wilne r , 592 F.3dat 7 6 18 (inte rnal quota tion marks omit ted). Acc ordin gly, we af firm 19 the d istri ct co urt’s conc lusio n tha t the Gove rnmen t has 20 adequ atelyjust ifiedits withh oldin g of the p hotog raph under 21 FOIA Exemp tion 3. 22

331 CONCLUSION 2 For t he fo regoi ng reaso ns, t he ju dgmen t of the d istri ct 3 courtis h ereby AFFIR MED in pa rt an d REVERSED in pa rt. We 4 affirm the judgment of th e dis trictcour t ins ofar as it 5 susta ined the G overnment’ s wit hhold ing o f rec ords relat ing 6 to th e CIA ’s us e of water board ing a nd th e pho togra ph ofAbu 7 Zubay dah. We r evers e tha t par t of the j udgme nt th at 8 requi res t he Go vernment e itherto d isclo se th e cla ssifi ed 9 informatio n in the O LC me moran da an d the tran scrip t of the 10 distr ict c ourt’ s ex pa rte , in cameraproc eedin g, orto subst itute lang uage propo sed b y the dist rict court . 11

34