Opinion ID: 6498715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: The FOIA authorizes judicial review when “an agency has (1) ‘improperly’ (2) ‘withheld’ (3) ‘agency records’” so that the district court may “force an agency to comply with the FOIA’s disclosure requirements.” Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 478 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting DOJ v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989)). We review a district court’s summary judgment decision de novo, Ctr. for Const. Rts. v. CIA, 765 F.3d 161, 166 (2d Cir. 2014), including the threshold determination of whether the requested records are “agency records” eligible for disclosure under the statute, Doyle v. DHS, 959 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 2020). Trump and an individual, in which the non-public nature of the meeting is emphasized in the text of the email. 9 For those documents properly considered “agency records,” once the agency has identified an applicable exemption and justified its application, our review is generally deferential to the agency’s analysis. While “[t]he defending agency has the burden of showing that any withheld documents fall within an exemption to the FOIA,” we “accord a presumption of good faith to an agency’s affidavits or declarations,” NRDC v. EPA, 19 F.4th 177, 183 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted), such that “when an agency provides ‘reasonably detailed explanations’ to support its decision to withhold a document, its ‘justification is sufficient if it appears logical and plausible,’” id. (quoting ACLU v. DOD, 901 F.3d 125, 133 (2d Cir. 2018)).