Opinion ID: 778068
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exemption 7(E)

Text: 22 The Service withheld portions of 16 TAs pursuant to Exemption 7(E). This exemption allows an agency to withhold: 23 records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information ... (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.... 24 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). The dispute in this case turns on whether IRS has shown that the disputed records or information were compiled for law enforcement purposes. 25 There are several overarching principles that the courts follow in assessing whether records or information satisfy the threshold requirement of § 552(b)(7). First, law enforcement purposes under Exemption 7 includes both civil and criminal matters within its scope. Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 420 n. 32 (D.C.Cir. 1982). Second, the FOIA makes no distinction between agencies whose principal function is criminal law enforcement and agencies with both law enforcement and administrative functions. Id. at 416. Therefore, agencies like IRS, that combine administrative and law enforcement functions, as well as agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), whose principal function is criminal law enforcement, may seek to avoid disclosure of records or information pursuant to Exemption 7. Finally, courts can usually assume that government agencies act within the scope of their legislated authority. Id. at 418. However, courts apply a more deferential standard to a claim that information was compiled for law enforcement purposes when the claim is made by an agency whose primary function involves law enforcement. Id. This point was amplified in Pratt v. Webster : 26 On the one hand, the assumption that a mixed-function agency is acting within the scope of its authority tells a court nothing about whether it has met the Exemption 7 threshold requirement of a law enforcement purpose. Law enforcement, indeed, is often one of such an agency's proper functions, but other functions are also a major part of the agency's day-to-day business. Thus, a court must scrutinize with some skepticism the particular purpose claimed for disputed documents redacted under FOIA Exemption 7.... If courts accept a mixed-function agency's claims of law enforcement purpose without thoughtful consideration, the excessive withholding of agency records which Congress denounced and sought to avoid... might well result. 27 On the other hand, the generally accurate assumption that federal agencies act within their legislated purposes implies that an agency whose principal mission is criminal law enforcement will more often than not satisfy the Exemption 7 threshold criterion. Thus, a court can accept less exacting proof from such an agency that the purpose underlying disputed documents is law enforcement. This less exacting judicial scrutiny of a criminal law enforcement agency's purpose in the context of the FOIA Exemption 7 threshold is further bolstered by Congress' concern that inadvertent disclosure of criminal investigations, information sources, or enforcement techniques might cause serious harm to the legitimate interests of law enforcement agencies. 28 Id. (internal citations and footnotes omitted). 29 In the instant case, the District Court correctly identified IRS as a mixed-function agency, subject to an exacting standard when it comes to the threshold requirement of Exemption 7. The District Court, however, relied on Rural Housing Alliance v. United States Department of Agriculture, 498 F.2d 73, 81 (D.C.Cir. 1974), in holding that a mixed-function agency may only withhold information pursuant to Exemption 7 when the information concerns investigations which focus directly on specifically alleged illegal acts, illegal acts of particular identified officials, acts which could, if proved, result in civil or criminal sanctions. Mem. Op. II at 14 (quoting). This was error. 30 Rural Housing and its progeny apply only when an agency seeks to invoke Exemption 7 in a situation in which there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation. The court recently explained the development of this line of authority in Jefferson v. Department of Justice, 284 F.3d 172 (D.C.Cir.2002): 31 In assessing whether records are compiled for law enforcement purposes, this circuit has long emphasized that the focus is on how and under what circumstances the requested files were compiled,... and whether the files sought relate to anything that can fairly be characterized as an enforcement proceeding.... In Rural Housing Alliance v. Dep't of Agriculture, 498 F.2d 73 (D.C.Cir.1974), the court identified two types of investigatory files that government agencies compile: (1) files in connection with government oversight of the performance of duties by its employees, and (2) files in connection with investigations that focus directly on specific alleged illegal acts which could result in civil or criminal sanctions. Id. at 81. Again, the court emphasized that the purpose of the investigatory files is the critical factor. Id. at 82. Thus, if the investigation is for a possible violation of law, then the inquiry is for law enforcement purposes, as distinct from customary surveillance of the performance of duties by government employees. Id. Then, in Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408 (D.C.Cir.1982), the court set forth a two-part test whereby the government can show that its records are law enforcement records: the investigatory activity that gave rise to the documents is related to the enforcement of federal laws, and there is a rational nexus between the investigation at issue and the agency's law enforcement duties. Id. at 420, 421. The court again distinguished the need to establish that the agency acted within its principal function of law enforcement, rather than merely engaging in a general monitoring of private individuals' activities. Id. at 420. 32 The court applied these principles in Kimberlin v. Dep't of Justice, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C.Cir.1998). In that case, the requester asked for all papers, documents and things pertaining to the OPR investigation of another AUSA. Id. at 947. Applying the distinction between law enforcement records and internal agency investigations set forth in Rural Housing, 498 F.2d at 81, the court stated that [m]aterial compiled in the course of ... internal agency monitoring does not come within Exemption 7(C) even though it `might reveal evidence that later could give rise to a law enforcement investigation.' Kimberlin, 139 F.3d at 947. Concluding, however, that the OPR investigation here at issue was conducted in response to and focused upon a specific, potentially illegal release of information by a particular, identified official, id. at 947, the court held that the information in the OPR files was compiled for law enforcement purposes. Id. 33 Id. at 176-77. 34 Appellant Tax Analysts argues that, under the Rural Housing test, the scope of Exemption 7 is limited to situations in which the agency can show that the disputed material relates to an investigation focusing directly on specific alleged illegal acts which could result in civil or criminal sanctions. We disagree. The Rural Housing standard is still good law, but it has no bearing on the issue in this case. The information here at issue does not relate to any ongoing investigation by IRS. Rather, IRS seeks to avoid disclosure of internal agency material relating to guidelines, techniques, and procedures for law enforcement investigations and prosecutions outside of the context of a specific investigation. Such materials clearly satisfy the law enforcement purposes threshold of Exemption 7. The District Court's holding to the contrary failed to take adequate account of 1986 amendments to Exemption 7. 35 Prior to 1986, Exemption 7 required a threshold showing that the materials in question were investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) (1982). However, in 1986, Congress amended the exemption to protect records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, deleting any requirement that the information be investigatory. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, § 1802(a), Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207, 3207-48 (1986) (amending 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)). See North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088, 1098 n. 14 (D.C.Cir.1989) (stating that the 1986 amendment changed the threshold requirement for withholding information under exemption 7: the exemption formerly covered `investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes'; it now applies more broadly to `records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes'); Keys v. United States Dep't of Justice, 830 F.2d 337, 340 (D.C.Cir.1987) (same). And the legislative history makes it clear that Congress intended the amended exemption to protect both investigatory and non-investigatory materials, including law enforcement manuals and the like. See S.REP. No. 98-221, at 23 (1983) (expressing intent to protect sensitive non-investigative law enforcement materials and to broaden the exemption to include records regardless of whether they may be investigatory or noninvestigatory). Congress also amended Exemption 7(E) to permit withholding of  guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, thus giving further indication that the statutory threshold was not limited to records or information addressing only individual violations of the law. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) (emphasis added); S.REP. No. 98221, at 24 (1983). 36 It is clear that, under the amended threshold of Exemption 7, an agency may seek to block the disclosure of internal agency materials relating to guidelines, techniques, sources, and procedures for law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, even when the materials have not been compiled in the course of a specific investigation. See, e.g., PHE, Inc. v. Dep't of Justice, 983 F.2d 248, 250-51 (D.C.Cir.1993) (holding that portions of a FBI manual describing patterns of violations, investigative techniques, and sources of information available to investigators were protected by Exemption 7(E)). The amended threshold to Exemption 7 resolve[s] any doubt that law enforcement manuals and other non-investigatory materials can be withheld under (b)(7) if they were compiled for law enforcement purposes and their disclosure would result in one of the six recognized harms to law enforcement interests set forth in the subparagraphs of the exemption. S.REP. No. 98-221, at 23 (1983). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the District Court's judgment on this point. 37 It will be up to the District Court in the first instance to apply the correct threshold and then to determine, as Exemption 7(E) requires, whether release of the disputed agency materials would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. The District Court may conclude that some or all of the disputed TAs must be released, but this conclusion cannot be based on the fact that they do not relate to the investigation of a particular act of wrongdoing.