Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. DHS, No. 23-00046, 2025 WL 1293309 (D.D.C. May 5, 2025) (Ali, J.)

Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. DHS, No. 23-00046, 2025 WL 1293309 (D.D.C. May 5, 2025) (Ali, J.)

Re: Request for communications between U.S. Secret Service personnel and group called Oath Keepers

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 6; Exemption 7, Threshold; Exemption 7(C):  The court relates that “[the] emails [at issue] indicate that a Secret Service agent was in contact with [the] Oath Keepers founder . . . about an upcoming rally in September 2020.”  “Here, DHS withheld the agent’s name based on FOIA exemptions 6 and 7(C).”  The court also notes that “[i]f the records at issue were ‘compiled for law enforcement purposes,’ triggering exemption 7(C), there is no need to separately consider the applicability of exemption 6.”  The court first finds that “DHS has satisfied its burden to show that the records in question were compiled for law enforcement purposes.”  “A declaration submitted by DHS attests that the records ‘were compiled in connection with the Secret Service’s protective mission and under its authority to conduct such protective operations.’”  “Consistent with that characterization, the emails show agency personnel discussing the Oath Keepers’ potential presence ‘for POTUS’ upcoming visit’ and include a request to ‘conduct social media analysis on [the Oath Keepers and another group] and provide any information regarding their plans to attend the event.’” “The emails also reflect agency personnel’s understanding that the Oath Keepers’ presence would have ‘no direct impact on our official site’ but would have ‘an impact on the area where the attendees park and get on buses.’”  “The Court accordingly has no trouble concluding that the discussions in these emails were connected to the Secret Service’s statutory responsibility to protect the President from security risks.”  “[Plaintiff] suggests that these records were not compiled for law enforcement purposes because they show the unnamed agent helping the Oath Keepers coordinate with the Secret Service instead of investigating the group as a security risk.”  “But the emails show agency personnel discussing the Oath Keepers’ potential presence at the event and the possible effect on security – discussions that serve the Secret Service’s legitimate law enforcement purpose of protecting the President.”  “[Plaintiff] also argues that the emails were not compiled for law enforcement purposes because they discuss guarding political supporters rather than guarding a person subject to Secret Service protection.”  “The presence of individuals carrying weapons or otherwise ‘exercising their 2nd Amendment rights,’ however, would plainly be relevant to the Secret Service’s statutory responsibility to protect the President at a public event, regardless of whether the group was itself focused on the protection of attendees.”
  
  Regarding the application of Exemption 7(C), the court finds that “[c]ourts have recognized, and [plaintiff] does not dispute, that law enforcement officials ‘have a legitimate interest in preserving the secrecy of matters,’ including their identities, ‘that conceivably could subject them to annoyance or harassment in either their official or private lives.’” “The agent in question ‘was responsible for conducting protective intelligence operations related to the security of Secret Service protectees.’”  “And ‘[p]ublicity, adverse or otherwise, arising from a particular protective operation may seriously jeopardize the effectiveness in conducting other protective functions or performing [agents’] day-to-day tasks.’” “These assertions are sufficient to support a substantial privacy interest.”  “At the same time, [plaintiff] has not identified a strong public interest in disclosure.”  “[Plaintiff] argues that the agent in question acted negligently or improperly and the public therefore has a substantial interest in knowing who the agent is.”  “According to [plaintiff], the emails show misconduct because the agent was ‘communicating with, coordinating with, and expressing sympathy toward a violent militia group and their leader in advance of their unprecedented assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.’”  “But the Court cannot infer that the agent acted improperly by describing the Oath Keepers as pro–law enforcement and forwarding their leader’s cell phone number to other agency personnel.”  “To the contrary, the emails indicate that the agency did investigate the Oath Keepers before the event.”  “[Plaintiff] also contends that disclosure is in the public interest because it would shed light on how the Secret Service responds to ‘unofficial contact and positive sentiment toward extremist militia groups.’”  “But disclosing the name of the agent would not provide any additional insight into how the Secret Service is carrying out its statutory functions.” “[Plaintiff] has not identified any strong public interest in disclosure that outweighs the substantial privacy interest at stake, and the redactions were therefore proper under exemption 7(C).”