Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/american-civil-liberties-union-737069393
Timestamp: 2020-08-14 05:49:09
Document Index: 650850538

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 565', '§ 565', '§ 565', '§ 565', '§ 565', '§ 565']

American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Defense, 082118 FED2, 17-779 - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 737069393
Attorney: Dror Ladin, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY (Lawrence S. Lustberg, Avram D. Frey, Gibbons P.C., Newark, NJ, on the brief) for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney (Sarah S. Normand, Assistant United States Attorney; Chad A. Readler, ...
The Army took photographs of detainees at military detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq after September 11, 2001. The ACLU sought records related to the treatment of detainees with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted to the Department of Defense (DoD) and filed suit in 2004, after receiving no response. The district court ordered the government to produce or identify all ... (see full summary)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, its components DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF NAVY, DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendants-Appellants.
Defendants-Appellants United States Department of Defense and its components Department of Army, Department of Navy, Department of Air Force, Defense Intelligence Agency, and United States Department of the Army (together, the "DoD" or the "Government") appeal from a January 18, 2017 opinion and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.) granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs-Appellees American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Inc., Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans for Peace (together, "ACLU"). The district court first concluded that the Protected National Security Documents Act of 2009 ("PNSDA"), Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-83, § 565, 123 Stat. 2142 (2009), is an exemption statute within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act's ("FOIA") Exemption 3 and therefore de novo review applied to the DoD's invocation of the exemption to withhold the photographs at issue. The district court then concluded that the DoD provided insufficient information for the court to adequately review the Secretary of Defense's (the "Secretary") decision to certify that the DoD's withholding under the PNSDA was proper. Lastly, the district court concluded that FOIA Exemption 7(F) does not apply to the photographs at issue in this case. We hold that irrespective of whether the PNSDA is subject to FOIA, the Secretary's certification-the result of an extensive, multi-step review process including recommendations of several senior U.S. military commanders-and the information provided by the DoD satisfied the requirements of the PNSDA. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with directions to enter judgment for the DoD.
Dror Ladin, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY (Lawrence S. Lustberg, Avram D. Frey, Gibbons P.C., Newark, NJ, on the brief) for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney (Sarah S. Normand, Assistant United States Attorney; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Douglas N. Letter, Matthew M. Collette, Catherine H. Dorsey, Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Department of Justice, on the brief) for Geoffrey S. Berman, United
States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Jacobs, Leval, and Wesley, Circuit Judges. [*]
This appeal is the latest installment in lengthy litigation relating to photographs of detainees taken by U.S. Army personnel at military detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of September 11, 2001. The American Civil Liberties Union and a number of other organizations (together, "ACLU") initially sought records-most notably, photographs-related to the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody via a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request submitted on October 7, 2003, to the United States Department of Defense and its components1 (together, the "DoD") and other agencies (together with the DoD, the "Government"), and filed suit on July 2, 2004, after receiving no response.
The district court ordered the Government to produce or identify all responsive documents by October 15, 2004, Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Def. (ACLU I), 339 F.Supp.2d 501, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), and ordered release of the photographs with redactions on September 29, 2005, Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Def.
(ACLU II), 389 F.Supp.2d 547, 570-74 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).2 In so doing, the court rejected arguments by the Government that the photographs could be withheld pursuant to three FOIA exemptions.3 See ACLU II, 389 F.Supp.2d at 570- 79. The Government initially appealed but withdrew the appeal when a third party released the photographs without authorization.
During the pendency of the appeal, the Government identified additional photographs potentially responsive to the ACLU's FOIA request and attempted to withhold these newly identified photographs under the same three exemptions. The district court again rejected these arguments, this time without written opinion, and ordered the release of the responsive photographs. Am. Civil Liberties
Union v. Dep't of Def. (ACLU III), 04-4151, 2006 WL 1638025, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2006); Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Def.
(ACLU IV), 04-4151, 2006 WL 1722574, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2006), vacated sub nom by Dep't of Def. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 558 U.S. 1042 (2009) (mem.).
The Government appealed, and this Court affirmed, holding that the FOIA exemptions did not apply. Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Def. (ACLU V), 543 F.3d 59, 70-71, 83-84, 87, 91 (2d Cir. 2008), vacated sub nom by Dep't of Def. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 558 U.S. 1042. After this Court's decision, the Government initially informed the district court that it was processing the photographs for release, including additional photographs it also thought responsive to the initial FOIA request, and it "represented that all photographs would be released by May 28, 2009." Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Def. (ACLU VII), 229 F.Supp.3d 193, 199 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). However, the Government reversed its position at the direction of President Obama following a plea from the Prime Minister of Iraq that release of the photographs "would fuel insurrection and make it impossible to have a functioning government." Id. at 200. The Government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. Id. at 199.
Before the Supreme Court took any action regarding the Government's petition, Congress passed the Protected National Security Documents Act of 2009 ("PNSDA"), Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-83, § 565, 123 Stat. 2142 (2009). The PNSDA permits the government to withhold disclosure of any photograph "taken during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, through January 22, 2009" (the "time period requirement") that "relates to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States" (the "subject matter requirement"). PNSDA § 565(c)(1)(B). To withhold a photograph from disclosure under the PNSDA, the Secretary of Defense must issue a certification "stating that disclosure of that record would endanger citizens of the United States, members of the United States Armed Forces, or employees of the United States Government deployed outside the United States." Id. § 565(c)(1)(A). The Secretary's certification expires after three years but may be renewed at any time and without limitation. Id. § 565(d)(2)-(3). The PNSDA also requires the Secretary to timely notify Congress of the issuance of any certification or renewal. Id. § 565(d)(4).
Following the PNSDA's passage, Secretary Gates issued a certification on November 13, 2009 (the "2009 Certification"), stating that "[u]pon the recommendations of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Central Command, and the Commander of Multi-National Forces-Iraq," he had determined that disclosure of the photographs would endanger persons protected under the PNSDA and that the photographs were therefore "exempt from disclosure." Joint App. 196. The Supreme Court shortly thereafter granted the Government's petition, vacated this Court's opinion, and remanded in light of the PNSDA and the 2009 Certification. Dep't of Def. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 558 U.S. 1042.
On remand to the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.), the ACLU argued that the PNSDA was a FOIA withholding statute and the court should review the Secretary's endangerment determination de novo.4 In the ACLU's view, the 2009 Certification was but a conclusion that failed to justify why "disclosure of [the] records now would cause harm." Joint App. 209. The district court disagreed. In announcing its decision from the bench on July 20, 2011, the court stated "it [is] clear to me that Secretary Gates had a rational basis for his certifications and that I could not second-guess it . . . beyond looking for a rational basis the way [I] did. I find that rational basis." Id. at 237. The court acknowledged that the assessment of the impact of the photographs on the battlefield of Iraq was best left to the military...